TorquayFan

Hi Chomper. I'm not sure what 'blearing' is, but anyway, right or left, my thoughts on the triple lock are led by uncomfortable realities. The UK Govt in 2023 borrowed £119 billion. Such uncomfortable realities as this cannot be faced, because of the need to court Voters. Democracy is still the best but this drawback is IMO, more than evident. FYI £119 billion approximates to a Govt spend per person of £1,700, (for every man woman and child). With Govt. debt approaching £3 trillion now, which is £43,000 per man woman and child. Approx ! But you see the message? Nothing to do with wings at all !

Thanks TGJB - lest we forget ! And good to see those UK stats. Vit D3 5000iu and a mask on the plane for me. But endemic now . . . not the other one. ATB

Thanks TGJB - sad to see that Covid is still around. I don't see much about Covid in the UK press these days ?

OK Chomper, I get it and thanks for the reply. I agree, 'ludicrous' is a good word for those suggestion from Avin Laff. But I don't think you are right here - "UK State Pensions an entitlement paid for by individuals’ NI contributions". Rather, 'UK State Pensions an entitlement PARTLY paid for by individuals’ NI contributions'. Whilst the period and amount an individual contributes is used to calibrate the entitlement at Pensionable Age, I'm afraid it's a fact that the payments to Pensioners each year, come out of the current national tax take from all sources. The Tories (JH and RS) have reduced the rate of EMPLOYEE's NI, (long regarded as an extra slice of income tax), as this is a way of encouraging those in work as distinct from those on benefits. I think that's a laudable aim and I hope that the Govt succeed in reducing EMPLOYEE's NI to 0%. Makes perfect sense, leaving the EMPLOYER's NI as a sort of payroll tax. If the Govts' intention is to cut Employer's NI too in due course, then I think that's a good idea too BUT of course, the revenue will have to be raised elsewhere, say VAT, Fuel duty etc. With a change of Govt likely next year, who knows where this ends up? ATB

Chomper, I'm guessing you are reacting to that quote in bold, which was a comment from me. So if I may answer, it would of course, be difficult to organise a national scheme for OAP's without some sort of 'big' Government.

Avin Laff ?? So it's OK now to means test to make sure the Govt. isn't financing frivolity when others are in penury. I agree. Your ideas re. hospital and education - what the heck ? BTW isn't it 'larf'. ATB

Srivichai is OK and close to 'Tiger is coming' Bar with a fine range of imported beers. Also I heard a new Falang bar had started up close by. I used to stay at the old Chaopraya now renovated - that's probably OK now.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting there should be NO increases to the OAP. I think the equitable way is to link the OAP to the RPI alone. I see no logic for a 2.5% minimum or increases in line with average wage increases.

A hidden gem in Pattaya, for me, the Bar at the front of the 'One Bay Breeze' hotel in Pattayasaisong 12 Alley - (opposite a couple of sports bars). The Hotel itself rates well and the food accompanied by a glass of draught Chang beer was inexpensive, different and delicious. Fortunately I don't visit Pattaya often, but I was staying at the Siam Guesthouse around the corner, which was good value too. So it's 'One Bay Breeze' next time you want a quieter pint. GL

Good morning Avin Laff - I understand your own position completely and I am not criticising your wanting to receive your OAP to facilitate "the idea of frivolity" but it is the Govts. task to look out for the wider good is it not? Therefore, IMHO, payment of the OAP should be means tested, as for some, a little more spread around would help with real unmet needs for say, food, health, rent etc. As Da La posted earlier, cancelling the 'triple lock' would certainly NOT be a vote winner. Tories and Labour know this 100% but instead of being realistic and working together on the obvious need to cut back, they are flirting with the Voters. On the other point, surely means testing of OAP would be digestible for many Labour voters?

Somo - Korat is a big place but IMO these days it's quiet for Falang fun. Leosor is central close to the Monkey Bar where Falang meet with some other bars in walking distance. Srivichai is cheaper and in the same area. Enjoy

Avin Laff - "Why pay for something you're not going to get? As I suggested before, you did get it! BUT in the form of maybe roads, schools, Hospitals etc. ad nauseam. It's just another Tax used to pay current stuff. But why give OAP to those amply provided already? Ah 'Boots and Laces' - erstwhile I knew Steve Cooper, many Fans all time favourite . . . . GN

C Smith - can you not read? . . . (BTW the empassioned question of OAP increases to UK Pensioners in Thailand is not relevant here. Thanks) Whilst I sympathise with your cause it's bl**dy ignorant to paste that carp on this thread when asked not too. Don't you have another thread to go to ? Ah, but I see a link! Maybe IF we didn't pay OAP to Folks with 'sufficient' wealth and income in retirement, we could afford to help your half million.

Avin Laff If OA Pensioner has made NI contributions as required then I suppose the OA Pension does become an entitlement. However, as the NIC simply goes into the National tax take, rather than being set aside/invested to pay your pension, in fact it's been long spent elsewhere maybe to your benefit in other ways. Better IMO to treat OAP as a benefit that could be withheld when the benefit is not needed and allocated to those in penury. Just makes sense to me. Your second proposal is novel but we would then have to have separate Income tax/NI rates for those in or out of 'self-funding' - sounds very complicated. ATB

Avin Laff 1. OAP is not means tested for the purpose of disallowing payment to those with 'sufficient' wealth or income. Why not Save that money and pay it to those who need it much more? 2. Yes the more you pay in the more you get, but that's not means testing! 3. I realise many OAP including myself are Taxpayers !! DaLa - precisely ! My first sentence was "With an election coming shortly, it's MO that neither the incumbent Tories nor the aspiring Labour Party are free to take the right action". ATB

George thanks. An interesting history and one would expect 'UNISON' to follow that line. But this, "we need to at least keep the ‘triple lock’ to protect future generations as well as current pensioners" is a wholly self-serving Unison assumption. Noob - you are spot on. The State OAP should be means tested of course, like many other Benefits . . . . some OAP's have so much wealth and income they just do not need the State Pension. Why tax and disincentivise Yougsters to pay it?

Rampant your first reply is frankly, brainless. BTW I am an OAP myself. Do you realise that your NI contributions paid in over the years have already been spent - did you never benefit from a school, a Hospital or a road etc. ? OA Pensions too are paid each year from the Govt's current tax take and borrowings. Your contributions are not sitting in a Rampant Rabbit bucket - it's not like a Private Pension Scheme where monies are paid into an investment on your behalf. You say, "these youngsters all want something for nothing". So I ask if the Pensioners are right to grumble now, many of them sitting in properties the Youngsters will never be able to aspire to. Re. your 2nd, "The govt should really have invested the pension money, instead its just another pot of money for them to use now". Precisely. You do get it. But if that had NOT been the case, they would have been compelled to INCREASE your other taxes over the years. How can you expect those working now and paying higher than ever taxes, take on a higher burden still, to indulge you now when they will be taking an OAP at a higher age than we (?) did . . . . .

With an election coming shortly, it's MO that neither the incumbent Tories nor the aspiring Labour Party are free to take the right action. The 'triple lock' has served it's purpose - through it's existence TR has done much to improve the lot of UK OAP's, with a 10% increase last year and 8% to come next month. Changing demographics make continuance of TR unwise. The UK needs to look after it's working population FIRST or there'll be nothing more for anyone else. Pensioners should accept the Govt. increasing pensions by RPI movements only, that in itself is a 'gold-plated' position. If average wage increases exceed RPI, Pensioners can be reassured that the increasing tax take would be making their position more secure. Democracy can often be undermined by the need to get votes - we all need to see the wider picture. (BTW the empassioned question of OAP increases to UK Pensioners in Thailand is not relevant here. Thanks)

JGW. I'm sure there are many decent Russians in Thailand and some are not unreasonably, wishing to escape patriotic military loyalties at home. I also get the feeling that there are many other Russians of a different kind. This comment of yours, "Supporters of democracy and Navalny they are not". How would you know that? An unfounded assumption ? Russians are prominent in Phuket and Pattaya with sordid looking Russian clubs here and there and it feels to me like an established network of gangsters rather than something else. Just MHO but given the terrible crimes and destruction Russia has wreaked in Ukraine, I think some bashing here is the least of Russians problems. You will create some debate but you have said nothing.

Repeating words from another thread, "a whinge prone, grievance and compensation culture has developed in the UK". Re. WASPI's, it's hard to believe that anybody would not have become aware of this pending change, given the 15 years prior notice. I remember the outrage at the time with most people shrugging their shoulders and moving on . . . of course, anyone can claim they weren't told properly of the change so they must be compensated - ha ha! If these women were not aware at all, then, other than in exceptional circumstances, their 'contributory negligence' to the situation would be, Umm, about 100% It'll be interesting to see how our lily-livered Governments proceed - for now, it'll be heads below the parapet for sure! Explained neatly in the DT - ""It was 1995 when the Pensions Act was passed and 1950s-born women were put on notice that their state pension age would rise from 60 to 65. The timeline was set and it would not be until 15 years later in 2010 that the changes would even start to come into force. The law change was widely covered in the media when announced and millions were fully aware and made appropriate changes to their own retirement plans."" Come on Ladies - pull the other one!

Thank you Chomper. So the measure of 'absolute poverty' is broadly, having less than 60% of average income. The UK Government has made a rod for it's own back - the word 'absolute' should be 'relative'. I would have thought 'absolute' poverty needs to be absolute - say nowhere to live, no food to eat, no healthcare etc. It's good to try and measure relative poverty but in the whinge prone, grievance and compensation culture that has developed in the UK, 'this one will run and run'. Coming back to it, single Parents should be aware that the State will not be able to keep them out of even relative poverty and as far as it is possible in real life, to stay out of situations where such relative 'penury' is likely, if not inevitable. I am very happy for the young Lady that she has Family to help her through.

A sweeping statement Skip with little relevance to the thread. As to the definition of 'absolute poverty' - just listened to a Lady with a 17 month old child bemoaning that with child benefit and a p/t job, her rent and council tax squeeze her budget for food etc. She bemoans not being able to repair her dishwasher, buy alcohol and have a social life. Without knowing the background, it anyway seems to me beyond reasonable expectations to hope to support a child on a p/t job and she is fortunate in being able to move in with her Parents if she has to. I am not unsympathetic, but is this really 'absolute poverty' ?

thaibeachlover - I agree that the level of damages awarded in the US Courts is EXCESSIVE but that's the way it is - it's not just tailored for Trump and he is not being persecuted at all. It's simple - he has broken the Law, (countless times). There's 6 months to go and it's my opinion Trump's descent into 'looneytunes' territory will lose him all but his most ardent supporters. Have a look at Trump's Dayton speech - he's really lost it! Of course Joe Biden is too old to stand again but he is the much lesser of two evils.

Trump has had 'insurmountable' difficulties with the further $464 million required by the New York judgement. The Court are firmly bound to recover the $464 million from his assets, but such recovery will be at 'fire sale' values and insofaras these assets are not unencumbered by mortgages. Given that the penalties in the NY case were to punish DT's frauds by overvaluation of assets, this does not augur well for DT. Will he be ruined? Is he in fact, a 'Billionaire' at all - the NY case suggests his financial status is not what he or his lawyers claim. Trump's credibility disappears in a vortex as this goes on, real time, with $80 million of interest being added to his woes daily. Surely his Election hopes are doomed . . . . ? Worth noting too that Trump's demeanour in recent speeches is looking distinctly more odd than usual.

I guess this is typical of what we have to look forward to IF Trump gets in ! Shocking . . .