David Hearne, CFP™

2

26

38.8K

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·7h

Evil? The state pension; and the triple lock that increases it, including to over a million millionaire pensioners, is paid by workers, whose pay is not going up as fast as the state pension has been And pensioners are the least likely group to be in poverty. If you’re concerned about poverty let’s hope those in poverty But if children are in poverty no one suggests the best way to help them is to give wealthy parents more benefits too. We focus help where it’s needed Evil? Really? So unless a government continues to pay ever more and more to pensioners, they’re evil?

English

0

1

24

wendy harris@wendyharris3285·7h

@dontdelay @DerylLynn I've explained why 'just earnings' doesn't work and why OAPs are in the trap of not being able to increase their income whereas workers can change jobs to keep ahead of inflation. State pension is roughly half minimum wage and below poverty pay. It's evil to target the poorest.

English

Opinion | "I deserve my pension, my Waspi refund, my triple-lock – the lot. And I won’t be backing down," writes Julie Burchill Read more: trib.al/b871JM9

0

23

DerylLynn on stranger’s island@DerylLynn·1d

Most days there are articles in the media encouraging resentment towards pensioners . It’s strange how those with a lifetime of contributing are a problem to the state but those who never will contribute a penny aren’t

English

73

260

982

9K

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·11h

Julie Burchill must be my kryptonite

The i Paper@theipaper

English

8

888

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·12h

Removing the triple lock would not mean state pensions stopped increasing It’s hard enough for a politician to propose abolishing the triple lock, let alone suggest freezing or cutting state pensions Without triple lock a new mechanism would be used, perhaps just earnings. Or just inflation. Not the best of both. In the example you used of 2% inflation and 1% earnings increase, then the worker is suffering a real terms pay cut.

English

0

1

19

wendy harris@wendyharris3285·13h

@dontdelay @DerylLynn If you remove the mechanism then pensioners income will fall back. Say inflation rises by 2% and wages by 1%. A worker can switch jobs to earn more money to keep ahead of inflation, a pensioner cannot. The same applies if there's an increase in taxation. OAPs can't switch jobs.

English

0

19

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·13h

@wendyharris3285 @DerylLynn If you agree, what’s being robbed then?

English

0

1

13

wendy harris@wendyharris3285·13h

@dontdelay @DerylLynn Agreed it is the mechanism that supposedly keeps pensioners income above poverty pay. Explain why it needs to be abolished. Explain how they will save money and where it's coming from.

English

0

18

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·13h

Who is trying to 'rob you of your pensions' ? I've seen lots of stories this week about the unsustainability of the triple lock, and questions about when it will be abolished. But triple lock is only the mechanism that increases the state pension by the best of three measures. Abolishing it doesnt take anyone's pension away. It wouldn't reduce anyone's state pension. And state pension would still go up.

English

39

wendy harris@wendyharris3285·18h

@DerylLynn It doesn't surprise me that some younger people see Ann W's death as just another 'selfish Boomer' bites the dust. This blaming of an entire generation for decades of bad governance by the ruling class is despicable scapegoating of older people just to rob them of their pensions.

English

0

3

41

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·13h

@DerylLynn @Pete_HeavyRain What plan is that then? Lowering the number of qualifying years means more people qualify for a full state pension. Including more women, which has helped to reduce inequality in retirement.

English

0

2

15

DerylLynn on stranger’s island@DerylLynn·18h

@Pete_HeavyRain It’s very apparent what the plan is

English

Jen k 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿@Jenny_1884

0

2

43

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·13h

It does not matter how high our spending on state pension goes. Or how low our spending on illegal immigrants goes. You will always see posts like this getting a lot of likes

So apparently Andy Burnham is likely to scrap the Triple Lock for pensioners because it’s becoming unaffordable but this Government can find plenty of money for illegal migrants who rock up on our shores who have paid NOTHING into our economy. This government puts foreigners before their own people. How this is even legal beggars belief. If they can find the money to house illegals then they can find the money to pay pensioners the paltry amount they receive.

English

0

6

1K

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·13h

@ArtilleryMan728 @andyburnham So essentially, we've favoured pensioners with the triple lock, and we should go on favouring pensioners with their own higher personal allowance?

English

Jen k 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿@Jenny_1884

6

196

Mark@ArtilleryMan728·14h

What labour needs to remember is Labour members and supporters grow old. The basic rate of taxable allowance hasn't changed, if he is going to dispense with the Triple lock he may consider raising the taxable allowance for pensioners to 18K before paying tax. @andyburnham

So apparently Andy Burnham is likely to scrap the Triple Lock for pensioners because it’s becoming unaffordable but this Government can find plenty of money for illegal migrants who rock up on our shores who have paid NOTHING into our economy. This government puts foreigners before their own people. How this is even legal beggars belief. If they can find the money to house illegals then they can find the money to pay pensioners the paltry amount they receive.

English

John Simpson@JohnSimpsonNews

2

407

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·15h

And if we beat France in the final, the Arc de Triomphe will become British soveriegn territory

Argentina v England is important way beyond football. If Argentina wins tomorrow night, it’ll put real fire behind the demand for the Falklands. If England wins, that should put the lid on it — for now.

English

4

0

21

1.2K

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·19h

@MsMolly188 @DerylLynn Not stop the pension. Stop the triple lock increases. The state pension would still be paid It would still increase every year. And younger people would still pay for it.

English

0

16

MsMolly188.@MsMolly188·19h

@DerylLynn Even multi millionaire Rupert Lowe brands us as a "selfish" generation (what the fuck is he then?) & he wants to stop our triple lock measly pension - the lowest in the EU ALL to capture the youth votes just like Starmer trying to appease & capture his Muslim votes.

English

0

36

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·2d

@Smithy0364 @2ears2wheels An accumulating wealth tax AND a capital gains tax when sold? So if you have to sell for less (perhaps in part because a wealth tax has lowered values) Can you offset your capital loss against your accumulated wealth tax?

English

40

Mark Smith@Smithy0364·2d

@dontdelay @2ears2wheels Or it’s deferred until death, or disposal of the asset?

English

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay

0

68

Alex S 🇬🇧🚵‍♂️ #FBPA@2ears2wheels·2d

The point is to stop money "just sitting there". You've just argued in favour of a wealth tax.

We tax wealth. Taxing wealth, even if we tax it more, doesn’t mean we need a wealth tax. We tax wealth when it’s spent (VAT) When it’s earned (income tax) When it’s received (dividends) When it’s realised (capital gains) When it’s invested (stamp duty) When’s it’s inherited (inheritance tax) When it moves, or when we want to do something with it. Not when it’s just sat there. That’s the moral argument.

English

0

771

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·2d

@PamTurnedge If you expected to retire at 60 why are you still working at 68? If your retirement depended on receiving a state pension why didn’t you retire at 66?

English

0

27

Pam Turnedge@PamTurnedge·2d

@dontdelay I started work at 16 I’m 68 and you’re a financial bod? 🤦‍♀️ I was promised to retire at 60 but as the whole world knows they changed that to 66!

English

0

38

Pam Turnedge@PamTurnedge·3d

Brilliant critique

Tony Ward@TonyWard867811

Forty years of your life, paid in. There's no pot. They spent it the day it arrived. Now they move the age again. Sixty five. Sixty six. Sixty seven. Sixty eight is law. They're whispering seventy one. Work longer. Get less. Die sooner. They didn't lose your pension. They spent it.

Français

0

1

362

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·2d

@2ears2wheels Who buys an asset, if they too are only going to be forced to sell it?

English

0

2

57

Alex S 🇬🇧🚵‍♂️ #FBPA@2ears2wheels·2d

@dontdelay In some cases yes absolutely. This is why it needs careful design.

English

0

60

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·2d

What investment income is taxed at below income tax rates? Do you mean dividends taxed at 39.35% instead of 45% for additional rate taxpayers? (Which are only payable after companies have paid corporation tax) Rental income from property is about to increase from 40% to 42% for higher rate taxpayers. So actually more than income tax But how would you tax price appreciation? Where’s the money coming from to do that if you haven’t sold it yet?

English

1

9

Liam Durrant@SpacemanLMD·2d

@dontdelay Some yes. But they also appreciate which isn't taxable. And the income from these is often taxed below income tax rates. So its a double win. Low tax on passive income compared to earned income and appreciation is untaxed unless its sold, which it often isn't.

English

Jonathan Hinder MP@Jonathan_Hinder

0

22

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·3d

We tax wealth. Taxing wealth, even if we tax it more, doesn’t mean we need a wealth tax. We tax wealth when it’s spent (VAT) When it’s earned (income tax) When it’s received (dividends) When it’s realised (capital gains) When it’s invested (stamp duty) When’s it’s inherited (inheritance tax) When it moves, or when we want to do something with it. Not when it’s just sat there. That’s the moral argument.

The Right’s response to a wealth tax is always “but it won’t work!” What I find interesting is that there is rarely an attempt to argue against it on moral grounds, because they know most people find such wealth inequality utterly grotesque. There is overwhelming public support for doing something about this - I mean, LOOK at that polling👇👀 So, why don’t we crack on with the most effective and practicable ideas? We know that a proportional property tax, while a bit less flashy, actually works, so let’s start there! @FairerShare

English

35

10

129

12K

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·2d

@SpacemanLMD Stocks, bonds and property. Don’t most of those generate income?

English

0

13

Liam Durrant@SpacemanLMD·2d

@dontdelay Stocks, bonds, property, commodities, art, unique designer goods, there's probably a load more I'm not even considering. Things that appreciate with time but don't get taxed until they're sold... so just don't sell them.

English

0

22

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·2d

@SpacemanLMD What kind of assets?

English

0

17

Liam Durrant@SpacemanLMD·2d

@dontdelay What about when its dumped into assets and left to accumulate, when its shifted around and accounted out of the taxable system like so much of it is..?

English

0

29

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·3d

@excelonman I’m not saying they don’t do it. But doing it doesn’t mean they also don’t have taxable income from their wealth But if they do borrow it, it still needs to be repaid, they pay interest (someone else’s profit and then tax) and then they spend it, with more tax paid

English

0

1

29

excelonman@excelonman·3d

@dontdelay Depends on their portfolio, you absolutely could do it as I explained.

English

0

25

David Hearne, CFP™@dontdelay·3d

@TonyWard867811 I should lead with M4? 🤣 There was more than enough basic errors in your original post and subsequent replies to not have to get into that depth and certainly not to lead with it

English

2

29

Tony Ward@TonyWard867811·3d

89% since 2011. Now put it next to the money it is paid in. M4 has more than tripled since 2000. Under £1 trillion to £3.27 trillion, and it expanded every year of your table. That is the number a financial planner should lead with. You left it out. An 89% rise while the money supply triples is not wealth. It is more units of a diluted pound. The figure climbed because the currency underneath it was destroyed faster than the headline admits. You benchmarked against CPI and earnings. Both are already gutted by that same expansion. Beating an eroded yardstick is not a win, it is measuring the theft with the thief's ruler. This is the exact thinking that flattened real wages since 2008 while every nominal number rose. Nominal up, purchasing power down.

English