3 in 10 cruisers won’t cruise again

[zap99]

55 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Sorted indeed. Except that Covid is many times more likely to kill the average 70 year old than the average 30 year old.  They’ll be fine, but we won’t, statistically. 

I see today’s Times is mooting the prospect of a lockdown until the autumn of 2021 - that would provoke uproar, and would probably be untenable.

If they are locked down for 18 months we can travel around with out picking up their germs.

[Harry Peterson]

13 minutes ago, kalos said:

 

and 48  years tax and counting. 

Even more than that, still paying tax, but also well aware that what was paid in the earlier years, when the average wage was well under £1000 pa, didn’t amount to a great deal in today’s terms.

 

What we’re drawing down now in terms of state pensions and healthcare costs swamps the taxes paid earlier, particularly when you take the free university education available then into account.

 

Simple economics, and the effects of years of high inflation.

[bee-ess]

25 minutes ago, kalos said:

 

and 48  years tax and counting. 

 

25 minutes ago, kalos said:

 

and 48  years tax and counting. 

52 years tax and still paying

[Selbourne]

Surely it’s less about how many years you paid tax but how much tax you’ve paid? I’ve kept a spreadsheet showing how much I’ve earned throughout my career, plus how much tax and NI I’ve paid. Wish I hadn’t! 

[Harry Peterson]

2 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Surely it’s less about how many years you paid tax but how much tax you’ve paid? I’ve kept a spreadsheet showing how much I’ve earned throughout my career, plus how much tax and NI I’ve paid. Wish I hadn’t! 

An interesting spreadsheet. I wonder how the yearly average compares with the current yearly cost to the exchequer?

[Eglesbrech]

3 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Even more than that, still paying tax, but also well aware that what was paid in the earlier years, when the average wage was well under £1000 pa, didn’t amount to a great deal in today’s terms.

 

What we’re drawing down now in terms of state pensions and healthcare costs swamps the taxes paid earlier, particularly when you take the free university education available then into account.

 

Simple economics, and the effects of years of high inflation.

We still pay tax, a lot of tax, even after retirement.

 

Only 5% of people of my age got “free” university education, (now it is its more than half of school leavers). Most others of my age  started to work and started to pay tax from a very, very early age.

 

And now

 

Free baby baby boxes

Free child benefits

Free nursery places 

Free school meals to P 3 for all

Free clothing vouchers 

Free laptops for school children

Extended maternity pay (as opposed to being summarily dismissed)

Paternity leave

Flexible working regulations 

Family friendly policies 

etc etc etc

 

I could go on and on with all the modern benefits. I for one am delighted that life is so easier and offers so many more opportunities for those younger than I am (particularly young women). In return I don’t expect them to begrudge me the very little I get by comparison when compared to what I have paid into the system over many, many years.

 

 

[grapau27]

11 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Surely it’s less about how many years you paid tax but how much tax you’ve paid? I’ve kept a spreadsheet showing how much I’ve earned throughout my career, plus how much tax and NI I’ve paid. Wish I hadn’t! 

A lot of us never claimed for dole,sick,council tax,rent etc,etc.

 

[zap99]

11 minutes ago, Eglesbrech said:

We still pay tax, a lot of tax, even after retirement.

 

Only 5% of people of my age got “free” university education, (now it is its more than half of school leavers). Most others of my age  started to work and started to pay tax from a very, very early age.

 

And now

 

Free baby baby boxes

Free child benefits

Free nursery places 

Free school meals to P 3 for all

Free clothing vouchers 

Free laptops for school children

Extended maternity pay (as opposed to being summarily dismissed)

Paternity leave

Flexible working regulations 

Family friendly policies 

etc etc etc

 

I could go on and on with all the modern benefits. I for one am delighted that life is so easier and offers so many more opportunities for those younger than I am (particularly young women). In return I don’t expect them to begrudge me the very little I get by comparison when compared to what I have paid into the system over many, many years.

 

Did you have to provide your own PPE. I bet climbing up those chimney's took it's toll on your street clothes.😷

[grapau27]

9 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

An interesting spreadsheet. I wonder how the yearly average compares with the current yearly cost to the exchequer?

Everything cost a  lot less when we were younger as well as lower wages so comparing like for like there is not a lot of difference.

The higher population now and benefits being paid is the driving force for the cost to the Exchequer.

 

[grapau27]

16 minutes ago, Eglesbrech said:

We still pay tax, a lot of tax, even after retirement.

 

Only 5% of people of my age got “free” university education, (now it is its more than half of school leavers). Most others of my age  started to work and started to pay tax from a very, very early age.

 

And now

 

Free baby baby boxes

Free child benefits

Free nursery places 

Free school meals to P 3 for all

Free clothing vouchers 

Free laptops for school children

Extended maternity pay (as opposed to being summarily dismissed)

Paternity leave

Flexible working regulations 

Family friendly policies 

etc etc etc

 

I could go on and on with all the modern benefits. I for one am delighted that life is so easier and offers so many more opportunities for those younger than I am (particularly young women). In return I don’t expect them to begrudge me the very little I get by comparison when compared to what I have paid into the system over many, many years.

 

 

Absolutely brilliant response imo.

[grapau27]

11 minutes ago, zap99 said:

Did you have to provide your own PPE. I bet climbing up those chimney's took it's toll on your street clothes.😷

Did you?.

Edited April 20, 2020 by grapau27

[Eglesbrech]

Just now, zap99 said:

Did you have to provide your own PPE. I bet climbing up those chimney's took it's toll on your street clothes.😷

Given that chimney climbing stopped in 1834 then no 😀

 

I did have to provide my own uniform when I started part time weekend work at age 14 when still at school.

[grapau27]

5 minutes ago, Eglesbrech said:

Given that chimney climbing stopped in 1834 then no 😀

 

I did have to provide my own uniform when I started part time weekend work at age 14 when still at school.

+1

[zap99]

3 minutes ago, Eglesbrech said:

Given that chimney climbing stopped in 1834 then no 😀

 

I did have to provide my own uniform when I started part time weekend work at age 14 when still at school.

Shortly before I retired one of the "kids" came up to me and said "the laces in my safety boots broke". Replace them then. "Can I have an order number for the menders". I thought, I need to get out of here.

[kalos]

54 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Simple economics, and the effects of years of high inflation.

 

I had a good teacher when it came to tax and savings, my uncle was very high up in the inland revenue.

From a very young working age  I was pestered into pension top ups and other ways of protecting against

inflation . Not a case of simple  economics more like a good teacher who knew what he was doing .

Glad I did what I was told back then .

[bee-ess]

40 minutes ago, grapau27 said:

A lot of us never claimed for dole,sick,council tax,rent etc,etc.

 

And we paid our mortgages at 15% and now get peanuts on our savings

[Selbourne]

41 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

An interesting spreadsheet. I wonder how the yearly average compares with the current yearly cost to the exchequer?

Rest assured that the exchequer has come out considerably on top Harry and will continue to do so through my retirement. Furthermore, anything that I may need in later life, medical treatment excepted, I shall have to pay for. Logic might say that the more you pay in the more you might get out, and the less you pay in the less you might get out, but in this country the reverse is usually the case. 

[Selbourne]

1 minute ago, bee-ess said:

And we paid our mortgages at 15% and now get peanuts on our savings

Yes, I remember that well and recall what a struggle it was, but let’s put things into context. Most of us were able to buy our own properties at that time. Yes, we might have suffered negative equity for a while, but we came out the other side. With a modest deposit you could buy a decent house for 3 to 4 times average salaries. Nowadays youngsters have no chance, decent houses costing at least 10 to 15 times average earnings. I think that the younger generation have it far harder than we ever did. 

[Harry Peterson]

10 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Rest assured that the exchequer has come out considerably on top Harry and will continue to do so through my retirement. Furthermore, anything that I may need in later life, medical treatment excepted, I shall have to pay for. Logic might say that the more you pay in the more you might get out, and the less you pay in the less you might get out, but in this country the reverse is usually the case. 

Certainly something in that, Selbourne, and I think I've repaid the cost of my 'free' 1960s university education many times over in additional taxes.  I don't begrudge that in the least though if it helps produce a fairer society. 

 

The Scandinavian model is even fairer (few people mind taxes there because they understand the benefits it brings) but most voters here aren't bright enough to work that out.  Low income taxes wins every time - and then everyone gets hit with hidden taxes such as car repairs caused by collapsing roads, private healthcare costs to compensate for the gaps in the NHS, private education to cover gaps in the educational system, and at the very end substantial private nursing home fees if you have assets in excess of £23,250.

[Harry Peterson]

14 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Yes, I remember that well and recall what a struggle it was, but let’s put things into context. Most of us were able to buy our own properties at that time. Yes, we might have suffered negative equity for a while, but we came out the other side. With a modest deposit you could buy a decent house for 3 to 4 times average salaries. Nowadays youngsters have no chance, decent houses costing at least 10 to 15 times average earnings. I think that the younger generation have it far harder than we ever did. 

Goodness - I think you and I are about the only ones in agreement on that last point.  And I'm in my 70s.

[Eglesbrech]

5 minutes ago, Selbourne said:

Yes, I remember that well and recall what a struggle it was, but let’s put things into context. Most of us were able to buy our own properties at that time. Yes, we might have suffered negative equity for a while, but we came out the other side. With a modest deposit you could buy a decent house for 3 to 4 times average salaries. Nowadays youngsters have no chance, decent houses costing at least 10 to 15 times average earnings. I think that the younger generation have it far harder than we ever did. 

Sorry I don’t agree. It used to be x 3 the average “male” salary. Now what a women earns counts for just as much, as it should.

 

 

[Eglesbrech]

2 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Goodness - I think you and I are about the only ones in agreement on that last point.  And I'm in my 70s.

Harry, perhaps for men.  Life is so much easier for young women now for which I am extremely happy.

[Selbourne]

Just now, Eglesbrech said:

Sorry I don’t agree. It used to be x 3 the average “male” salary. Now what a women earns counts for just as much, as it should.

 

 

I’m not talking about criteria for a mortgage application, I’m talking about the cost of property in relation to average earnings. You are disagreeing about a point that I haven’t made! You surely cannot dispute that it is significantly harder for the younger generation to get on the property ladder than it was for us? 

[Selbourne]

6 minutes ago, Eglesbrech said:

Harry, perhaps for men.  Life is so much easier for young women now for which I am extremely happy.

Attitudes towards women are indeed far better these days, as they should be, but I dispute that they have it much easier. My wife was able to get on the property ladder, under her own steam, when she was just 23 as I did, also under my own steam at 22. We have two daughters aged 22 and 26, both in decent jobs and neither has a hope in hell of getting on the property ladder until we pop our clogs. 

[Eglesbrech]

Just now, Selbourne said:

I’m not talking about criteria for a mortgage application, I’m talking about the cost of property in relation to average earnings. You are disagreeing about a point that I haven’t made! You surely cannot dispute that it is significantly harder for the younger generation to get on the property ladder than it was for us? 

Yes I can.  The cost of a property is relative to what all of those paying the mortgage earn. As now young couples both earn the “buying” power is doubled.
 

Remember thatI I come form a different part of the world to you.

 

Add to that the fact that the younger generation inherit significantly more and use the bank of mum and dad for deposits which we never had (or at least I didn't).