Cigarettes up again.
When will we get a chancellor with the courage to stop this savage attack on one of the few comforts available to the less well off? We pay more than our fair share already, die younger so we're not the massive drain on the public purse that these selfish "Live to a hundred" health nuts are with their pensions and 24 hour care costs for the last twenty years of their smug lives.
Disgusting.
|
|
Buy even more that'll show him what you think of his ideas!
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 19 Mar 14 at 14:20
|
.....one of the few comforts available to the less well off?
Ever thought that buying ciggies probably explains why you are less well off Robin??
Benson and Hedges are now around 40 pence each...... ridiculous - get some will power and give it up..... one friend of mine died two weeks ago after suffering emphysema and being bedridden and on oxygen..... another is still alive but with half his tongue and jaw removed because of cancer caused by those 'comforts ' called cigarettes....
....tax them more I say....
|
|
I smoke for health reasons. My pension's going to be so poor I can't afford to go much beyond 65.
|
>> Benson and Hedges are now around 40 pence each
They've been more than eight shillings each for a good couple of years now. It's an incentive to cut down as I am sure the coughing, impoverished Relianto will agree.
(HAWK! ... Splat!)
|
You have my sympathy.
Two of the larger ongoing pay backs from having given up smoking are not to have to suffer from increased taxation or idiot, rabid anti-smokers.
|
Do what I do, buy them in Belgium.
I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes in the UK for the last 12 years.
Pat
|
I no longer smoke, don't drink often either come to that, but I'd far rather see alcohol taxed to hell than tobacco.
Give me the company of someone who has had several cigarettes over the the company of another who has had none but has had several drinks.
The former might smell a bit but generally they won't be otherwise compromised.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 19 Mar 14 at 15:48
|
You must have met some very nasty drunks Runfer.
I suppose we all have, but I've also met quite a few nice ones who stay compos, retain a decent element of self-control and continue to make sense without becoming boringly repetitive.
I think I may be one of those myself. No one's perfect of course, I've done nasty and dangerous things when drunk, but not for a very long time. These days you, er, 'wouldn't like me when I'm sober'.
|
Oh I dunno, I find most people infinitely more interesting and entertaining when they are sober. Those in drink often just think they are being fascinating when in truth they are usually at their worst.
A minority view perhaps, but it is mine.
|
>> A minority view perhaps, but it is mine.
EEEEEh... however fascinating one may find oneself, drunk or sober, one can be expected to judge others more harshly. Yet I insist that there are some people who make sense and aren't boring, or deluded about how fascinating they are, after some consumption of alcohol, obviously not excessive by local standards whatever they may be.
It may be an age thing. Eventually you don't bother to try to be fascinating anyway, so you don't bother to delude yourself about it.
I agree alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug in widespread use. But I'm a libertarian where drugs are concerned. I wouldn't like even alcohol to be taxed any more heavily than it is at present. That would be a tax on the poor (me).
|
>> Those in drink often just think they are being fascinating when in truth they are usually at their worst.
Oh no, I've been there when I'm drunk. I am sure that I am witty, amusing, entertaining and fascinating.
The fact that sober people think I'm a pain in the butt just shows that they have no appreciation of my shining wit.
|
>> The fact that sober people think I'm a pain in the butt just shows that
>> they have no appreciation of my shining wit.
Assuming you have either been drunk or sober on here, I haven't seen much shining either way.
|
|
Like you're any kind of a judge!!
|
>> Like you're any kind of a judge!!
The words you are after are "unwilling victim"
|
Seriously though, whether or not you drink normally, being sober around drunk or drinking people is generally a bore.
One has to drink to enjoy the company of drinking people.
In your case though, Zero, people who are with you drink a lot for an entirely different reason.
|
>> Seriously though, whether or not you drink normally, being sober around drunk or drinking people
>> is generally a bore.
Drinking (often to excess) in company of drinking (to excess) people is sociable. Doing it alone (to excess) at home is a problem.
>In your case though, Zero, people who are with you drink a lot for an entirely different reason.
I understand they feel inferior in my presence and need to install confidence, so I make allowances for you them
|
>>Doing it alone (to excess) at home is a problem.
Quite agree, but its quantifying "to excess" that is the issue.
e.g.
I drink a lot. I mean really, a lot. More than most of you would find acceptable.
Yet the last time I was actually drunk - as in out of control, falling over, puking etc, would be 35 years ago or thereabouts. Objectively inebriated would be about 18 hours ago.
I had my MOT week before last and, touch wood, turns out I am currently free of detectable disasters.
So, how does one decide what is too much?
|
>> e.g.
>> I drink a lot. I mean really, a lot. More than most of you would find acceptable.
the last time I was actually drunk - as in out of control, falling over, puking etc, would be 35 years ago or thereabouts. Objectively inebriated would be about 18 hours ago.
>>
That would be a clue to what is excess.
Pat
|
>>That would be a clue to what is excess.
First essential for a smartass answer would be that what you said could be understood.
|
>> >>That would be a clue to what is excess.
>>
>> First essential for a smartass answer would be that what you said could be understood.
Woa, give the girl her due, I know what she means. The fact you can drink so much, without falling over or puking or looking drunk or suffering bad hangovers IS the problem. Its one of the very sure signs of alcoholism, IE the bodies inability to know when you have had too much.
Now I can drink heavily, and sometimes to excess (but I know about it, the mornings APPALLING hangover being the warning sign) but I don't, because after say a 1/4 bottle of gin I know I am getting peed, I look and act peed, and I know I will have a hangover.
Doesn't stop me drinking a bottle of port in a night tho.
|
>>Doesn't stop me drinking a bottle of port
You're having a laugh; if I get silly with red wine, port or anything similarity heavy then war breaks out in my head in the morning. And bear in mind that I have to get up at 6:00am and be functionally efficient everyday for the school run (get em up, washed, dressed, prepared and journeyed) then I have no choice.
White wine and spirits though...............
|
|
I've been a non drinker for over thirty years now, I stopped when I first got married and simply couldn't afford it and never went back. It can have tremendous advantages, at the odd company shindig which one is unable to get out of attending one can coax the most salacious gossip out of people while giving nothing away oneself.
|
>> what you said could be understood<<
.........perhaps if you were sober?
Pat
|
>>.........perhaps if you were sober?
I am. I would legitimately pass a UK breathalyser.
So what's your point?
|
You asked the question >>So, how does one decide what is too much? <<
I gave my answer......if you don't like it see the cyclists thread and your own views on that one:)
Pat
|
I didn't say whether or not I liked it, I asked what your point was as I didn't understand it.
Do try and keep up.
|
Oh yes, I think you do.
Pat
|
>> Oh yes, I think you do.
>>
>> Pat
Why would I waste my time pretending?
I don't understand the following other than assuming that it is supposed to be a) clever and b) insulting.............
>> e.g.
>> I drink a lot. I mean really, a lot. More than most of you would find acceptable.
the last time I was actually drunk - as in out of control, falling over, puking etc, would be 35 years ago or thereabouts. Objectively inebriated would be about 18 hours ago.
>>
That would be a clue to what is excess.
If you cannot or do not wish to explain, then so be it, but save me from your clumsy and erroneous insinuations.
|
>> So, how does one decide what is too much?
There are two measures. One is the UK Chief Medical Officer's advice on units. I assume from what you say above that, like me, you bust that limit by some margin.
Second is friends/family. If you're drinking to point of being a PITA then they'll tell you. Got that T shirt too though mostly 'cos idea that I drop off in front of telly/laptop seems to offend.
|
>>you bust that limit by some margin.
Can't even see it with a telescope.
>>Second is friends/family.
Ask my wife, and she'd tell you it was my 50th. (which was a few years ago).
However, whilst my wife may not know I'm under the influence, I do.
|
>> >> So, how does one decide what is too much?
>>
>> There are two measures. One is the UK Chief Medical Officer's advice on units. I
>> assume from what you say above that, like me, you bust that limit by some
>> margin.
As do most people, with impunity, because the limits are for most people are laughably low. Being so low they offer no reasonable guidance.
|
|
Are they not based on medical evidence? I agree they are a lot lower than I would like them to be but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Some medical opinion actually think they are too high.
|
>> Are they not based on medical evidence?
Are they? I have to say the medical case has not convinced me, all I have seen is "this is what we say the limit is" Its the same argument the anti drink drivers use. Ie we want the DD limit lowered to zero to save lives, despite the fact that people who have have had a drink up to the limit are not the primary cause of deaths on the road.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 19 Mar 14 at 18:04
|
|
Units are fatuous and so are the recommended limits. That is not to say of course that there won't be individuals who become intoxicated, or whose health may suffer, even from these very small intakes. Like the public discourse on illegal drugs, and in exactly the same way, this stuff does more harm than good.
|
Units are fatuous and so are the recommended limits. That is not to say of course that there won't be individuals who become intoxicated, or whose health may suffer, even from these very small intakes. Like the public discourse on illegal drugs, and in exactly the same way, this stuff does more harm than good.
As far as I know, the amounts were the result of some blue sky thinking - just plucked out of thin air. Prior to that, the 'safe' amount for a man was about double, and I don't think that had much science either!
|
I guess is would be niece to believe that there I no health risk in moderate alcohol consumption but why would the government be so keen to up qet across this message if there was no truth in it.? Nothing in it for the government - the more we drink the more taxes we pay and telling us to drink less is not a vote winner.
Sadly I fear they are probably right.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 19 Mar 14 at 19:20
|
I guess is would be niece to believe that there I no health risk in moderate alcohol consumption but why would the government be so keen to up qet across this message...
Went out with the smartphone but without the glasses, did we, CG?
};---)
|
>> Cigarettes up again.
>>
>> When will we get a chancellor with the courage to stop this savage attack on
>> one of the few comforts available to the less well off? We pay more than
>> our fair share already, die younger so we're not the massive drain on the public
>> purse that these selfish "Live to a hundred" health nuts are with their pensions and
>> 24 hour care costs for the last twenty years of their smug lives.
>>
>> Disgusting.
Well look at it like this, you are going to die early so we need to screw as much money out of you as possible. Don't see why I should carry on paying tax into my 80's because you checked out early.
Stop moaning.
|
The commentariat are focussing on pensions liberalisation as the game changer. It looks as though he's effectively abolished the need for an annuity and freed retirees to invest value of their money purchase pensions as they wish. A gain for the pensioner and the Treasury as there will be more tax take on the alternatives.
Devil will b in detail though and it will be weekend before the published 'red book' is analysed.
Massive hike in tax on fixed odds betting machines is well overdue too.
|
|
I've a small pension that's due for payment in the next couple of months. Looks likely that I'll be able to take it all as a lump sum.
|
>> I've a small pension that's due for payment in the next couple of months. Looks
>> likely that I'll be able to take it all as a lump sum.
Might not happen immediately as legislation almost certainly needed. This is the sort of detail that will be set out in the 'red book':
www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2014-documents
|
|
September's fuel duty rise has been scrapped. Not really a surprise with an election looming, but welcome nonetheless.
|
>> I've a small pension that's due for payment in the next couple of months. Looks
>> likely that I'll be able to take it all as a lump sum.
I feel like playing "mine is bigger than yours" in reverse. I started on a Free Standing Additional Voluntary Savings scheme but then responded to a good early retirement deal. I now get an annuity of £2.19 per month.
The provider insists on paying monthly and won't let me commute for a lump sum. Does this seem to be the sort of thing referred to?
|
|
Good news on ISAs but why w.e.f. July 1st and not April 6th, start of the new financial year?
|
|
Yes, it does seem odd. No idea what will happen, other than my intended pay in of the 2014/15 ISA allowance to my existing ISA may complicate things, and at a guess, it'll be another new account I need to research and open.
|
>>"Live to a hundred" health nuts are with their pensions and 24 hour care costs for the last twenty years of their smug lives.
I'm a health nut, in fact I had two nut cutlets with salad and new potatoes last night :(
Wifeys dad smoked all his life, ate all the junk a'going, died last year at 88.
I don't want to stay in this world any longer than I have to, but I would like to die healthy (strange but true)
|
>>
>> I don't want to stay in this world any longer than I have to, but
>> I would like to die healthy (strange but true)
>>
Not many people die healthy, unless it's a heart attack or a stroke. For most of us the last few months (at least) will be a time of pain and misery.
|
|
God help us, the fellow's wearing a tie...
|
>> Not many people die healthy, unless it's a heart attack or a stroke. For most of us the last few months (at least) will be a time of pain and misery.
My father died from a super-massive cerebral haemorrhage, my mother died of heart failure, my brother died from a burst aortic aneurism - all quick and virtually painless, so there's hope for me yet.
|
"I don't want to stay in this world any longer than I have to"
It's not obligatory to stay but I'd want proof of somewhere better before deciding to leave.
|
"Cigarettes up again"
As Pat says - have a trip to Belgium. I smoke a few Meharis Brazil Cigarillos a day. Just been to Belgium - bought a stock at 5.60 euros for 20. If I went to local tobacconist in Nottingham they are £5.99 for 10.
While in Belgium/France nip to local supermarket and have a look at wine/spirits prices. I buy some perfectly acceptable swigging red wine in 5 litre boxes for 12 euros. It's Appellation Controlee. Places like Lidl/Aldi/Auchan/Intermarche over here have loads of wine (all App cont) for about 1.50 euros a bottle.
Oh, and while there have a trip to Bruges/Bruxelles etc for a nice meal and some cheap excellent chocolate. Or maybe just sit at a café with a fag, glass of wine (or some of that excellent Belgian beer) and watch the world go by.
Yes, I know, real wine experts will say it's rubbish but is it more rubbish than paying £5.99 for the cheapest bottle in M&S/Tesco/Sains etc??
Please don't tell me I'm an idiot for having a smoke and a few glasses of red each evening - I know!
P
|
|
I always wondered if cigarillos were real. It's a word I only ever saw in leaflets advising me of my duty-free allowances, and I don't think I've ever knowingly seen one in the wild. I imagined they might be able to coil up, but perhaps I was confusing the word with 'armadillo', which I think is something else altogether.
|
>> but perhaps
>> I was confusing the word with 'armadillo', which I think is something else altogether.
>>
Or perhaps "peccadillo", only a little bit bad for your health?
|
I was confusing the word with 'armadillo', which I think is something else altogether.
>>
It's a town in Texas immortalised in song by Tony Christie.
|
>> I always wondered if cigarillos were real. It's a word I only ever saw in
>> leaflets advising me of my duty-free allowances, and I don't think I've ever knowingly seen
>> one in the wild. I imagined they might be able to coil up, but perhaps
>> I was confusing the word with 'armadillo', which I think is something else altogether.
>>
They used to be quite common back in the day. I had a spell of smoking them when I thought it looked cool, along with Gauloises which were a lovely smoke but unfortunately came in a soft pack which ensured they got crushed in your pocket.
|
>> Oh, and while there have a trip to Bruges/Bruxelles etc for a nice meal and
>> some cheap excellent chocolate. Or maybe just sit at a café with a fag, glass
>> of wine (or some of that excellent Belgian beer) and watch the world go by.
>> Yes, I know, real wine experts will say it's rubbish but is it more rubbish
>> than paying £5.99 for the cheapest bottle in M&S/Tesco/Sains etc??
>> Please don't tell me I'm an idiot for having a smoke and a few glasses
>> of red each evening - I know!
>> P
Nowt wrong with any 'o that thy knows.
|
Exactly what we did at the weekend Phil and very pleasant it was too.
Ieper is only 30 minutes away from Adinkerke and always worth a visit for an evening meal and to watch the Menin Gate ceremony.
I paid £39.50 for 200 Sterling and have just looked to see what they are over here....£6.80 for 20.
I get the Eurotunnel 'free' with Clubcard points and stock up with Brouilly at a reasonable price.
We're not the only ones who do this so over the years it represents a loss to the Chancellors purse in taxation.
As a bonus the V70 enjoys it too!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 20 Mar 14 at 04:52
|
Well the timing and content of the budget is entirely spot on for SWMBO and me......
I retire next week ( Yippee !) and SWMBO retired last week so we are both now in a situation where we have control over our pensions and do not have to be locked into annuities.
The new ISA increase and pensioners bonds will hopefully allow us to make some money on our savings ......
I have spoken with our Financial adviser this morning and arranged a meeting as l need to completely review the finances for the way ahead.
The people I feel sorry for are those pensioners locked into low paying annuities at the bottom of the market a couple of years ago with existing providers and who did not investigate enhanced or open market options.....
|
>>I retire next week ( Yippee !) and SWMBO retired last week
It seems to me you'll have to wait a year before you get the full benefit. Get back for another twelve months - you slacker!
;>)
Mine that matures in a couple of months is a final salary pension that pays £300 pa. I could do more with a lump sum.
I see VED is increasing for many.
|
>> I retire next week ( Yippee !) and SWMBO retired last week so we are
>> both now in a situation where we have control over our pensions and do not
>> have to be locked into annuities.
You didn't have to be locked into annuities before, you could have done drawdown.
It will help me a bit, because I'll be able to get more out of my SIPP before my best occupational pension kicks in, so reducing the amount I might pay higher rate tax on at some point in the future.
But it's a cynical measure. Quite a lot of people with modest pensions that leave them below the income support line anyway may as well just draw the lot, spend it, and let the state pay for everything. And they will. Coincidentally, it brings increases and brings forward tax receipts (and leaves a bigger hole later for our children, according to the forecast, even before any additional benefits cost).
I can't help thinking that at some point, a chancellor will say that as there is no limit on drawings anyway, the pension commencement lump sum is an irrelevance and can be removed, along with its tax free status.
The 'bingo advert' is beyond belief. I want to puke every time I hear the phrase "hard working families".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26658742
|
Pensioner Bond -
1.173 The Budget announces that National Savings and Investments (NS&I) will
launch a choice of fixed-rate, market-leading savings bonds for people aged 65 or
over, available from January 2015 and allowing inflows of up to £10 billion.
These will provide
certainty and a good return for those who have saved all their lives and now mostly rely on their
savings for income. Interest on the bonds will be taxed in line with all other savings income,
at the individual’s marginal rate, meaning that pensioners who do not pay savings tax will be
eligible to receive the interest tax-free. For the purposes of costing this measure, the central
assumption made at this Budget is that NS&I will launch a 1-year bond paying 2.8% gross/
annual equivalent rate (AER) and a 3-year bond paying 4.0% gross/AER, with an investment
limit of £10,000 per bond. Precise details will be confirmed at Autumn Statement 2014, to take
account of prevailing market conditions at that time.
4% sounds OK, but not until 2015 I can't have one as I'm not 65, but herself can. I wonder when the inflation will start.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293759/37630_Budget_2014_Web_Accessible.pdf
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 20 Mar 14 at 11:19
|
(and leaves a bigger hole later for our children, according to the forecast, even before any additional benefits cost).
As pensions cannot be passed on on your death, children are unaffected.
|
>> As pensions cannot be passed on on your death, children are unaffected.
I suspect the reforms will change that principle. If the money purchase 'pot' is turned into investments rather than an annuity then those investments are part of the estate and will pass per will/intestacy.
|
I'm not sure if this idea won't come round to be regretted. All the rules have to be worked out, but this smells of another 'scandal' in a few years/decades.
' suppose they could but many who are smart enough will dodge the inheirtance tax rules anyway. What I think will happen is the tax free amount will drop. '
I suppose they could but many who are smart enough will dodge the inheirtance tax rules anyway. What I think will happen is the tax free amount will drop.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 20 Mar 14 at 14:58
|
>>
>> >> As pensions cannot be passed on on your death, children are unaffected.
>>
>> I suspect the reforms will change that principle. If the money purchase 'pot' is turned
>> into investments rather than an annuity then those investments are part of the estate and
>> will pass per will/intestacy.
The reason a pension (or what people think of as 'a pension') cannot be passed on when you die is that you have already bought an annuity that terminates when you die.
So if you haven't bought that annuity the fund still belongs to you. If your pension is in drawdown then it already can be passed on to your beneficiaries (albeit with a 55% tax charge).
www.hl.co.uk/pensions/income-drawdown/what-happens-when-i-die
|
>> So if you haven't bought that annuity the fund still belongs to you. If your
>> pension is in drawdown then it already can be passed on to your beneficiaries (albeit
>> with a 55% tax charge).
There has been some muttering about the 55% rate being inappropriate too. Which I suppose it is, if there are no drawdown limits in your lifetime. And if I drop off the twig before the boss, my remaining fund can be used to provide a pension for her without paying the tax charge on my death.
Paid out to beneficiaries as a lump sum, it's outside the estate for inheritance tax currently - if it stays that way and the tax is reduced to 40% that will be an improvement.
TBH, I didn't see much wrong with the drawdown principles anyway - capped at a level designed to minimise your chance of running out, unless you already have £20,000 a year of secure income when you can draw what you like. I see no need to buy an annuity under current rules, at the rates prevailing. I'm still suspicious that he might be thinking about putting the tax free lump sum in play at some point, there's a lot of tax free cash taken currently.
He's solved a non-problem, and possibly created one, although the triviality changes look helpful.
|
>> (and leaves a bigger hole later for our children, according to the forecast, even before
>> any additional benefits cost).
>>
>> As pensions cannot be passed on on your death, children are unaffected.
They can, actually, but that wasn't the point - which was that the projected tax take goes down from about 2030 onwards as a result, and no assumptions have been made as far as I can see about increased benefits costs for people who have run themselves out of money.
I heard somebody on the wireless earlier saying it shouldn't result in any extra benefit claims because the new flat rate state pension is above the basic means test level. This is rubbish, because a lot of people with no pension provision other than the state pension are in rented and receive housing benefit as well as pension credit.
|
No doubt they will have anti-recycling rules to stop you - if you are over 55 - from
1. Salary sacrifice to put cash into your pension instead, thus saving NI.
2. Taking salary directly out of pension, free of NI.
|
AFAICS the budget is neutral for us personally.
Saves me having to worry about it!
|
The Budget - sooty123
