Off Topic Political Debate

Leo all I am doing is adopting the mantra 'think Global but act local', which is the only way forward. We will take the crisis in Syria as an example.....I would love to be able to wave a magic wand and help all needy people in the middle east. Ok. I do what I can in that sphere but, I can do more in my locality by helping those who have come from there. We have 400 refugees in Engelskirchen and so there is plenty of opportunity for this. Old people will get a pension in the UK. if they have paid their insurance stamps for enough years and only then......and with the growing numbers in the UK. who have been forced to reclassify their status as 'freelance' the numbers outside of that safety net will grow. How can I not make comparisons Leo ? When I see homeless people on the one hand and empty second houses on the other then I want to act on it - is this a result of envy ? Because I do not call it that - rather justice. You underestimate the poverty in some western countries Leo - simply because they are amongst the richest countries in the World does not mean that they don't have it. Look at the average life expectancy of homeless people in the west and then compare it to that of the whole population and then tell me that it is only 'relative'.

 

In the UK the self employed will be entitled to the new state pension which is more generous at £155.65 provided the qualifying 30 years have been achieved. Some missed years of payments can be topped up.

 

My good friend is a home help out here. She has no fixed hours, minimum wage, no contract beyond four weeks at a time and can be sent twenty miles with an hours notice. Yet she loves the job because she feels that helping elderly people to live independently is worthwhile and she gets pleasure from seeing how they love to see her. Her contentment comes from the work that she does rather than the very poor pay and conditions. She has two degrees and could get better employment, but will carry on doing what she is now rather than seeking material goods that she feels she doesn't really need. Her and her husband are not that well off compared to many.

Looking at some figures yesterday I found that Germany has about 46% of homes with owner occupiers, the UK and France about 64%, yet in the former soviet block countries the figure is 90% plus. The situation in Moscow is not that different to London, with most people unable to afford to live in the better areas of the city, so live on the outskirts and travel to work. I suspect most people aspire to own their own property, although there will be some who choose not to, but this does not fit well with those who wish the state to control such things. Social housing generally here looks poor quality and the rents are not that low, so the chance to save for your own flat or house is not easy. Any scheme that helps people to save even small amounts is a win for the person and the state, but to simply take money off others to provide better accommodation than they might live in is unjust.

 

It is inspiring to meet such decent folk as your friend.

As a family we certainly learned a lot living in a rural district in the Tarn. Some of the other families at my youngest daughter's school were not well off but were most hospitable and shared what they had. The only group they shunned were the Spanish gipsies, I don't know why.

 

Interesting figures on home ownership there Frenchie. Many people on higher incomes in Germany are quite prepared to carry on renting. I think this has 2 reasons: firstly that tenants have more rights and protection here, and secondly because the car is the absolute status symbol number 1 here (something which explains why the public transport in Germany is so run down).

 

Wow, I actually agree with everything you say here super. This government (and the last I have to say) has tried to tackle the problem, of low annuity rates, by "freeing up" the ways in which pension pots may be used in retirement - and I have taken advantage of these. Of course the onus is now transferred to the pensioner not to use up his/her pot too soon.

 

The treasury is also happy as some of this released money is taxable, better to draw down in stages I understand.

 

SH does occasionally say things which can be agreed with but....he does it completely by accident, without any intention. By the way Vic. we need a question on the Pub Quiz thread.

 

Unlike almost all of your views that nobody else agrees with, the revolution ain't going to happen!!

I imagine we will be reading your hairy fairy ideas this time next year.

 

All income derived from pension funds, whether annuities or drawdown, plus the state pension is totalled for income tax purposes and always has been - with one exception. 25% of any personal pension fund may be taken as a one-time tax-free lump sum. The remainder may then be converted to an annuity or converted to a flexible fund and whatever income, drawdown or lump sum is taken will be included in a tax year to calculate tax liability.

If one has a pension pot of (say) £200,000 then all, some or none of this amount may now be drawn down in any tax year or be paid as an annuity. Any amount taken from flexible pension funds plus any annuity plus state pension is then subject to the usual income tax thresholds of 0%, 20%, 40% etc. So if pension funds are tight then it probably better not to take a lump sum in any one year which would push one into the 40% bracket.

It is also possible to choose which income from pension funds against which the Inland Revenue applies one's tax code, either a lump sum drawdown (i.e. lump sum tax payment) or annuity (monthly tax payment) or of course both if the tax paid on an annuity doesn't cover the total tax liability. The tax code cannot be applied against state pension which is paid gross of tax.

BTW I am not connected with the Inland Revenue other than as a taxpayer!

 

Sorry, will set one now.

 

One problem faced in this country is that people who have saved for their retirement, bought homes etc are then expected to pay if they have to go into retirement / care homes etc - others who have not "accumulated such terrible wealth" get it for free. HOwever you look at it it is another disincentive to save as are the poor rate of interest on savings for nearly the last ten years.

 

I know you are thinking in a more "practical" way. However we have debated the political parties views on rich versus poor at some length - I have not seen anybody change their opinion nor seen any consensus. It is just a question of going round and round. How much do you take from the better off or rich and how much do you give to the worse off or poor. Add to that those who feel they can confiscate others wealth if their argument justifies it against those who think that whatever they inherited should go untaxed ad infinitum. None of that helps. You will not convince me that if you equalised every person in the UK's wealth you would fundamentally change people's overall level of happiness. As I keep saying happiness is internal - it is the old glass is half full or empty riddle.

I prefer to try to think of what sort of society is possible where wealth is not the sole measure of happiness. OFH gave a good example - I am sure there are millions of others. Simply arguing that we can improve someone's lot by giving them more and taking it from someone else is too simplistic

 

In a measure of happiness I would say our best times were when my wife and I were striving whilst being relatively hard up.

And no I don't want to turn the clock back, but can fully understand people giving most of their wealth away.

 

How can we measure happiness Leo ? They actually try to do this and have somehow 'found' that the happiest Europeans are the Danes. What are the basic needs of man ? To love and be loved. To have friends and a society around them. To have health - both in mind and body. To be able to live in this moment alone (as opposed to the yesterday which you cannot change and the tomorrow which you can't influence). Also to be able to give (if you are poor you often feel you can't do this). To be so creative that for the course of that creativity you are like in a trance. All of these are not material things - there you are right. How do you take wealth out of the equation so that the more important things in life can take priority ? My guess is that for most people if they are using up all of their energies getting the rent and then the other bills paid that they have no time left to experiment with other ways of living. I want to remove wealth (and the endless chasing of it) from the equation to set other creative energies free.

 

You see Cologne I think you have enumerated a lot of really good things that do make people happy and are totally unrelated to wealth. I think you will find poor people are sometimes among the most generous too - but they give far more than mere wealth.
It is only with your last couple of lines I diverge. Most of us have had to use energy to pay bills - but that does not prevent to use your phrase "experiment with other ways of living". For many people whose work is monotonous thoughts of outside work can be fulfilled while at work. In a world of too many people and limited resources plenty of time will always be spent "earning a living" We can though earn to live rather than live to earn.

 

One consideration I would like to add in which touches on comments made by Leo and Cologne.... is that we are basing a lot of this discussion on the idea that peoples basic living needs are being met to some degree by their work incomes or/and welfare ... and thus they can find happiness in other areas of their life is their work is not fulfilling.

These people may still have to work 40 hour plus weeks doing mundane work tasks etc....

AND there are significant numbers of people in the developed world who live below what we might consider that line. Most of these people seek to work and for whatever reason barely make ends meet.

Therefore it is very difficult to consider happiness when there is such a daily struggle.

If such a struggle could be reduced so that those who work hard can satisfy their living needs then we are likely to lay down conditions for a happier society.

 

There is a disproportionate amount of money spent by the worse off in the UK on non essential costs such as gambling (online gambling nowadays makes it so easy to lose money) fast food, designer trainers /clothes and dare I say it, hideous tattoos.

I was in this position many years ago and managed to avoid all of these ways of wasting money, although I did pop into The Wimpy a couple of times!!

 

Whats the truth about this one Cologne? Pretty sure it's not true but if you're there let us know all is OK...??? http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...steal-one-german-train-station-new-years-eve/

 

I see Comrade Corbyn is about to announce a reshuffle of his front bench - the knives are out!