Rant thread

[ckn]

28 minutes ago, Shadow said:

You are so wrong my friend

They look like a biscuit and you get them in the biscuit aisle of supermarkets.  What, apart from McVities saving the VAT money, makes them a cake?

[Shadow]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

They look like a biscuit and you get them in the biscuit aisle of supermarkets.  What, apart from McVities saving the VAT money, makes them a cake?

Biscuits go soft when stale

cakes go hard 

Jaffa cakes go hard therefore they are a cake

[ckn]

4 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Biscuits go soft when stale

cakes go hard 

Jaffa cakes go hard therefore they are a cake

I submit to the court the defendant's preference for rugby union over rugby league as definitive proof of his inability to tell his backside from his elbow.

[longboard]

On 9/16/2017 at 9:58 AM, Johnoco said:

You're lucky, I have the opposite problem!!

Have you consulted a proctologist?

[longboard]

7 hours ago, ckn said:

So, this rant is based on my post in Uninteresting Trivial Facts yesterday.  I had held this one back because it's hard not to make it seem like I want something others can't get.

It isn't aimed at any political party in particular as it's been in force for years and the governments of the day have been ignoring petitions and requests to fix it ever since I can remember and certainly since the first time I paid attention to it in 1995.

I receive a war disablement pension for my service in the army.  I get the non-taxable version that essentially means the army's medical board admitted it's an injury directly attributable to army service rather than simply being injured in service, if that makes sense.  That pension entitlement essentially means I over-earn as far as JobSeekers Allowance is concerned as it's "income from an employment".  Then my wife is on half-pay from her job so that means we're over the limit for any household benefits.

I really do grudge having paid all that tax over all those years and this is the first time in my adult life where I'd actually be eligible to claim unemployment benefits and I get nothing.  28 years worth of paying tax to be told by a snotty advisor that I should have known that I couldn't get any money and the tone said I was completely wasting her valuable time.  I checked with a separate independent advisor and they said that if I MAY be able to get about £10 per week if I pushed but that was unlikely in their experience and often overturned anyway on internal review.

So, I'm unemployed but I'm not officially "unemployed" for the stats as I was refused a payment and I refused to voluntarily sign-on without payment.  I CAN voluntarily sign on as unemployed and put myself through the ritual humiliations to get that status but why the hell should I?

It's things like this that make me really question my stance as a contractor for years making sure I was squeaky clean with my taxation while others were getting away with some extravagant excesses.  Why should I go out of my way to pay my dues when the government's goons treat me like a simpleton for daring to ask if I'm entitled to anything back.

My war pension isn't "income" as far as I'm concerned, it's my compensation for having to put up with a permanent injury incurred in my service in the army yet I seem to be the only one with that attitude towards it.

I remember reading a story back in 1995 (I remember the date because it was just after I left the army) about someone turning up at the Job Centre in their Bentley every fortnight claiming their non-means-tested Unemployment Benefit simply because they'd bloody well earned it.  I didn't understand that at the time, well, I now can completely understand it and I bloody well want my money back that I earned.

Is signing on worthwhile to get your NI paid, or is that not applicable...?

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

I submit to the court the defendant's preference for rugby union over rugby league as definitive proof of his inability to tell his backside from his elbow.

I consider rather his preference for Claw over Moby. 

You clearly fail to appreciate the subtleties and nuances of a Jaffa Cake.

I side with Shadow.

[ckn]

1 minute ago, longboard said:

Is signing on worthwhile to get your NI paid, or is that not applicable...?

For state pension entitlement, I have 28 years of NI payments behind me already.  The qualification for maximum payment is 30 years.  I'd doubt I'll not earn that other two years in the next 20 or so.  That is if there still is a state pension when I retire, or if the government haven't introduced an infirmity test to qualify.

[longboard]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

As soon as I find out what one is, I'll do so.

I'd say it's fundamental.

[ckn]

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

As soon as I find out what one is, I'll do so.

It's the doctor equivalent of signing on full-time for Bradford, you really wanted somewhere else, anywhere else, but that's all that was left for you.

[Bob8]

Minor annoyance.

Firefox thinks I speak Danish as my first langague and offers to translate English to Danish.

Chrome thinks I speak English  as my first langague and offers to translate Danish to English.

Yet, Google in both filters out English or Danish language pages to put German ones at the top because I have been in Switzerland for a couple of months.

[tonyXIII]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

For state pension entitlement, I have 28 years of NI payments behind me already.  The qualification for maximum payment is 30 years.  I'd doubt I'll not earn that other two years in the next 20 or so.  That is if there still is a state pension when I retire, or if the government haven't introduced an infirmity test to qualify.

You need to check this out! Seriously! The 30 years ended on 5/4/16 and was replaced by a 35 year qualifying period. I have just been advised that, as I have 32 years in before 2016, I cannot increase my pension, which is based on the old £122 maximum, by buying in extra years before 2016. As I no longer work in the UK, the only way I can improve my pension is to buy in 2 years post 2016, namely 2016-17 and 2017-2018. It's not straightforward because you will have some years entitlement pre-2016 and some years entitlement post-2016. Sorry if you already know all the ins and outs of this but, if you don't, check it out.

PS. I'm sure you'll pass any test they set you, including a dope test.?

Edited September 26, 2017 by tonyXIII

[ckn]

21 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

You need to check this out! Seriously! The 30 years ended on 5/4/16 and was replaced by a 35 year qualifying period. I have just been advised that, as I have 32 years in before 2016, I cannot increase my pension, which is based on the old £122 maximum, by buying in extra years before 2016. As I no longer work in the UK, the only way I can improve my pension is to buy in 2 years post 2016, namely 2016-17 and 2017-2018. It's not straightforward because you will have some years entitlement pre-2016 and some years entitlement post-2016. Sorry if you already know all the ins and outs of this but, if you don't, check it out.

PS. I'm sure you'll pass any test they set you, including a dope test.?

The official government page on this disagrees with you!

[Farmduck]

Are you saying £122 is the maximum weekly pension? What's your minimum pension age? Asset and Income Tests?

[tonyXIII]

Seriously, mate! That page is misleading. I spent 20 minutes on the phone to the DWP just yesterday. Mine is complicated because I was "opted out" when I was a teacher, so my maximum pension is reduced by something called COPE and this may not apply to you, but..

I have 32 years in the old (£122) pension and I can no longer buy in any extra years from before 2016 even though that page says that I can buy in the remainder of 2006-2007 for £159. Strictly speaking, I can buy in the years, but because I already have more than the 30 year maximum, it won't improve my pension beyond the £128 it currently stands at. Because their records are only complete up to 5 April 2016 as yet, they tell me that I can work or buy in the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 (I hit 65 on 11/4/2018). I live abroad, so I won't be working those years. To buy them in will cost me £733 per year and will net me 2/35 of the new £155 pension (about £9.12pw). Figures from DWP. It's a toss-up whether it's worth it for me. Whatever I do, this baby-boomer cannot access the new State Pension of £155 beyond that £9.12. Note, this is because of the opting out of part of the State Pension when I worked as a teacher.

I think, if you look carefully, there is a warning on the Pensions part of GOV.UK that the information provided may not apply in all cases and you should seek independent advice on particular issues. In other words, it's generic and can't cover every possible case. I was convinced after reading those pages that I could buy in 2006-07 for £159 and receive an extra £5 pw on my pension. Not so!

Check. Please.

 

[tonyXIII]

1 minute ago, Farmduck said:

Are you saying £122 is the maximum weekly pension? What's your minimum pension age? Asset and Income Tests?

For the old pension (pre-2016), yes. However, it is index-linked, so will increase slightly every year. Mine is complicated because I paid into an occupational pension and so my benefits are reduced by an amount called COPE (I think it means contracted-out pension equivalence). AFAIK, the old (pre-2016) State Pension was based on 30 years maximum to receive £122 maximum, so every year of contributions gave you 1/30th of £122.

The new (post-2016) is based on 35 years maximum to receive £155 maximum, so every year of contributions will give you 1/35th of £155.

If you pay into a "contracted-out" occupational pension scheme (eg. teachers), you pay less into the State Pension scheme and receive less in benefits because you wil get an occupational pension. It makes sense, but it is bloody complicated to work out for the ordinary bloke in the street. The guy I spoke to at the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) admitted it was complicated. I believed that I could buy in about five years from 2006 to 2012 and boost my pension by about £5 per week for every year I bought in. I was wrong.

Like I said, check it out.

[tonyXIII]

Sorry, Farmduck, I missed your other questions. Too much wine.

Minimum pension age for a man is 65, but is rising in stages over the next few decades. I just crept in to the 65 bracket, my brother is two years younger and misses it. I think he has to wait till he's 67, but I'm not sure. Women's pension age is supposed to be the same as men's now, I think! My wife is 71 and she hit state pension age at 60.

Occupational pensions are different. I took mine at 55 which was the minimum age for such pensions back in 2008, when I started receiving my occupational pension. I receive a reduced amount because I took it before the age of 65. The name for that is "Actuarially Reduced Benefit".

No asset and income tests as far as I know. Many people collect their pension and continue to work, usually in less-demanding jobs. I think I will be able to claim a Greek state pension on top of my UK state pension when I hit 67, which is the minimum qualifying age for Greece. It'll probably net me 5 bob a week!

 

[Farmduck]

Wow!!! or as the Uzbeks say, "F######n 'ell"  I get just under £300/week on the Disability Pension - same rate as Age Pension - and if I paid more rent I would get maybe another £20/week. That is the standard, no contributions, taxpayer-funded Pension.

We call occupational pensions Superannuation which can be taken at any age over 60(?) if you've permanently left the workforce.

The Pension Age is gradually increasing to 67 but I will qualify at 66. I can get another £80/week from any source and still get full Pension or if my other income reaches £250/week the Pension hits zero.

The Pension is indexed to the Consumer Price Index with 6-monthly increases.

I think you Engerlanders are getting robbed.

[tonyXIII]

Ah! Other benefits. You mention rent. I don't know if there are "extras" for needy people. For example, housing benefit. I've never claimed it and know nothing about it, but it is possible that some pensioners may get that on top of their pension.

After talking to the DWP, I feel like I've been robbed, but I do understand the rationale.

 

[longboard]

5 hours ago, ckn said:

For state pension entitlement, I have 28 years of NI payments behind me already.  The qualification for maximum payment is 30 years.  I'd doubt I'll not earn that other two years in the next 20 or so.  That is if there still is a state pension when I retire, or if the government haven't introduced an infirmity test to qualify.

I thought it was 35 years.

[ckn]

3 hours ago, tonyXIII said:

Seriously, mate! That page is misleading. I spent 20 minutes on the phone to the DWP just yesterday. Mine is complicated because I was "opted out" when I was a teacher, so my maximum pension is reduced by something called COPE and this may not apply to you, but..

I have 32 years in the old (£122) pension and I can no longer buy in any extra years from before 2016 even though that page says that I can buy in the remainder of 2006-2007 for £159. Strictly speaking, I can buy in the years, but because I already have more than the 30 year maximum, it won't improve my pension beyond the £128 it currently stands at. Because their records are only complete up to 5 April 2016 as yet, they tell me that I can work or buy in the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 (I hit 65 on 11/4/2018). I live abroad, so I won't be working those years. To buy them in will cost me £733 per year and will net me 2/35 of the new £155 pension (about £9.12pw). Figures from DWP. It's a toss-up whether it's worth it for me. Whatever I do, this baby-boomer cannot access the new State Pension of £155 beyond that £9.12. Note, this is because of the opting out of part of the State Pension when I worked as a teacher.

I think, if you look carefully, there is a warning on the Pensions part of GOV.UK that the information provided may not apply in all cases and you should seek independent advice on particular issues. In other words, it's generic and can't cover every possible case. I was convinced after reading those pages that I could buy in 2006-07 for £159 and receive an extra £5 pw on my pension. Not so!

Check. Please.

 

It's seriously misleading...  the "official" government website that talks about State Pensions is wrong UNLESS you specifically search for New State Pension.  It's grossly misleading.

I can't see any scenario where I won't qualify for a full state pension given I'm 46 now and I've 21 years until my official retirement age, unless they change it again.  Realistically, it's likely that the state pension will be the lowest of my pensions when I retire, it won't survive as it is unless the politicians are willing to have a genuine conversation with the country over either funding the ageing population's needs properly or deciding that old folk aren't worth the trouble.  Doing nothing is the equivalent of the latter though as we just can't keep going as we are; we can afford to cut taxes for those who don't need tax cuts but can't afford to fund the ageing population's needs.

[tonyXIII]

10 hours ago, longboard said:

I thought it was 35 years.

It depends, basically, on how old you are. If you're an old git like me, you're stuck with the old state pension (maximum years to qualify is 30). If you're a youngster, you may have a bit of the old state pension, but you will most likely be tied into the new state pension (maximum years to qualify is 35). If you are in your fifties or sixties, check out the implications for you.

 

[ckn]

I know dreams are often ways for the subconscious to prepare for bad things happening but, FFS, does it have to do it so bluntly.

I had a seriously bad night of sleep last night after my father-in-law was talking about my gran and saying that she didn't sound well when he spoke to her last.  So, my brain last night decided to run through the scenarios of how she might die and what would happen with that, I would wake up then it'd start another scenario.

Evolutionary ways to make us more survivable can be a bit of a dick at times.

[ckn]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

I know dreams are often ways for the subconscious to prepare for bad things happening but, FFS, does it have to do it so bluntly.

I had a seriously bad night of sleep last night after my father-in-law was talking about my gran and saying that she didn't sound well when he spoke to her last.  So, my brain last night decided to run through the scenarios of how she might die and what would happen with that, I would wake up then it'd start another scenario.

Evolutionary ways to make us more survivable can be a bit of a dick at times.

So, I spoke to my gran, she's fine, but that pervading dread after awful dreams just won't go.

[ckn]

Giving delivery workers minimum legal employment terms would add £1 to takeaway deliveries.

Are we really that far into selfishness as a nation that we’re happy to have someone on under minimum wage and with no employee protections to save some money on takeaways?

FFS...

edit: and it’s MINUMUM rights, not “better” rights. 

[Mumby Magic]

1. Contactless payment? The need is? Thieves can have £30 of goods asap? Then the point of a pin number is?
2. Cashback from major Supermarkets is just £50.