Originally posted by Robinho
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Flat-rate State Pension - Opinions?
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
Beer
is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin -
Originally posted by mudskipper View PostFinal salary schemes used to be very open to abuse - don't know if that's still the case. I have seen both the below scenarios in effect in the same organisation.
e.g. person works part time (50%) for 20 years. For the last 5 years, they go full time. The part time years are still credited as 'full years' so they get 25 years worth of pension.
But another person works full time for 20 years, then part time (50%) for 5 years. They negotiate to get the part time years credited as 'half years' on full salary, so will get 22.5 years pension. (IMO, this is how it should work)
In regards to the old Public sector pay is lower think again I have worked in the Civil Service and I was well paid for what I did and so were other the people who worked in the post room got 16k for opening and distributing mail. The DWP also worked in the same building and they had better salaries than us at the time and I also have friends who work at HMRC just answering calls (or not as the case maybe) and there on decent money for that.In Scooter we trustComment
-
Originally posted by formant View PostThe problem is that it's not just a basic tax increase for all - instead it hits some a lot harder than others (anyone on a contracted-out pension scheme (not just final-salary, also career-average)). And those that are affected aren't affected in proportion to their income (the majority aren't higher rate tax payers).merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by formant View PostYes, cause - like - there couldn't possibly be any other reason why someone wouldn't want to waste their time on your ....
You know what, I'll leave you to throw around the blatant insults. It's doing such a great job underlining (or should I say undermining?) your point.
It just seems to me like a double standard and i'd be curious to know where i have perhaps gone wrong in my understanding.
However, so far you have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to even entertain the perfectly fair point i have made, and the silence is getting a little deafening.Comment
-
Originally posted by Robinho View PostLook i just questioned why when i propose a policy that is a factor on wealth my system is flawed because it would just attract corruption. But when you propose a system that is a factor on wealth, it's because people are too stupid/lazy to relocate and/or retrain, or because they chose to sacrifice work for children.
It just seems to me like a double standard and i'd be curious to know where i have perhaps gone wrong in my understanding.
However, so far you have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to even entertain the perfectly fair point i have made, and the silence is getting a little deafening.
Quite frankly, there's no comparison to be made.
If you're looking for someone far-right-across-the-board, you're talking to the wrong person. I'm a fiscally mildly conservative and sceptical non-partisan leftie "socialist". I don't have a blanket-view of politics, I like to assess each topic on it's own merit. I'm sorry I'm not going to retrospectively entertain your immigration visa idea on the grounds of leaning slightly to the right on this current topic.Comment
-
Originally posted by formant View PostYou're talking about vastly different types and tiers of wealth in two scenarios that couldn't be any more distinct (filtering immigration through visa auctions while simultaneously leaving the EU (your point) vs. not rewarding people's poor career (or lack there off) choices at the expense of a select few).
Quite frankly, there's no comparison to be made.
If you're looking for someone far-right-across-the-board, you're talking to the wrong person. I'm a fiscally mildly conservative and sceptical non-partisan leftie "socialist". I don't have a blanket-view of politics, I like to assess each topic on it's own merit. I'm sorry I'm not going to retrospectively entertain your immigration visa idea on the grounds of leaning slightly to the right on this current topic.
I did not anticipate that to be the case. I actually want a very similar filter to apply, i want people coming to the UK who made good career choices and are productive and come to the UK to do high paid jobs.
But i'm glad after all this time we have diagnosed where you went wrong.Comment
-
Originally posted by Robinho View PostNo, you made the assumption only Russian oligarchs etc would come in, even though you conceded there were already loopholes available for them to come in anyway.
I did not anticipate that to be the case. I actually want a very similar filter to apply, i want people coming to the UK who made good career choices and are productive and come to the UK to do high paid jobs.
But i'm glad after all this time we have diagnosed where you went wrong.Comment
-
Wo wo wo! Where on earth have i demonstrated an anti-immigration mindset?
That is shameful accusation.
Nor does it have any flaws. Certainly none that you're able to outline.Comment
-
Originally posted by Robinho View PostWo wo wo! Where on earth have i demonstrated an anti-immigration mindset?
That is shameful accusation.
You want to ensure that exclusively wealthy - "good quality" immigrants receive visas.
If that isn't anti-immigration, I don't know what is.
Originally posted by Robinho View Post
Nor does it have any flaws. Certainly none that you're able to outline.Comment
-
Originally posted by formant View PostYou want the UK to leave the EU.
You want to ensure that exclusively wealthy - "good quality" immigrants receive visas.
Pulling out of the EU is not anti-immigration. It is anti-stupid undemocratic laws.
Wanting to cap the level of immigration to maintain a sensible population is not anti immigration.
Wanting productive immigrants to come into this country is not anti-immigration.
It's a shame that you have to resort to such slurs quite frankly.
Originally posted by formant View PostYou're in complete denial. Thanks for reminding me yet again why I stopped bothering with you last time around.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment