So it's National Insurance then

[Feedback]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Absolutely typical of a tory, can never actually explain why its bollocks just says its bollocks so must be true.

I can feel your face getting redder and redder.

I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.

[Doucas]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.

See you can't explain. You're just so enraged from 30 years of consuming tory media that other opinions just have to be wrong in your head otherwise it fries your brain, even if you can't explain.

This is the 3rd attempt of asking tories in here to explain why I'm wrong and none of you have even tried, you just divert divert divert.

Ps - I studied economics at university so please get the crayons out and teach me.

[IanD]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

The answer is it depends on the trust and what its intended purpose was for.

Trusts can be set up legitimately, then settlors die of natural causes. HMRC wouldn't automatically assume the purpose of the trust was to avoid tax if the death of the settlor was not a predictable event at settlement.

Setting up a trust on your deathbed would see HMRC ignore the trust.

However for the purpose of this thread s102 Care Act 2014 is relevant, and places the cost burden on the life tenant of the trust.

Apropos of your final point, most trusts have provisions for either new beneficiaries or the termination of the trust and who are absolutely entitled to the assets.

The Trust route wasn't a suitable way forward in the case of my mother as her death was predictable (terminal cancer) and almost certainly would have been seen as evasion by HMRC. Our wills do have Trust provision though. Time to check them through regarding the wording of the Trust. The law may have changed since written and Trustees may have died/retired or, in the case of one former partner in the solicitor's practice, been done for property fraud!
It will be interesting to see how (if?) voluntary NICs are affected by the rise in NIC contributions.

[Feedback]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

See you can't explain. You're just so enraged from 30 years of consuming tory media that other opinions just have to be wrong in your head otherwise it fries your brain, even if you can't explain.

You've not asked me to explain anything. You've rattled your cage and stamped your foot, but other than that, all that has manifested is a lot of bluster and dogma. Notwithstanding that point, turning to your comments:

1. I agree with you that the older generation need to contribute more, considering they will be the primary beneficiaries and to date, they almost certainly have not contributed anywhere near enough for the services they have received

2. I disagree to the extent that the Tories have profited from the pandemic. Its true that some businesses will have used their relationships with ministers to get their foot in the door but lets not forget it is the civil service that sign off the contracts, not the ministers. It would be down to the civil service to ensure the tenders met the criteria. The Ministers themselves have no say, and can only make the introduction

This is the 3rd attempt of asking tories in here to explain why I'm wrong and none of you have even tried, you just divert divert divert.

you've not asked me. Perhaps it is the way you ask it.

Ps - I studied economics at university so please get the crayons out and teach me.

are we supposed to be impressed that you studied a pseudo science at the college of knowledge. Economics has so many competing theories it cannot be taken seriously, the theory you adopt often depends on your politics (Keynsian, Chicago, Austrian etc). its at best an art

[Doucas]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

You've not asked me to explain anything. You've rattled your cage and stamped your foot, but other than that, all that has manifested is a lot of bluster and dogma. Notwithstanding that point, turning to your comments:

1. I agree with you that the older generation need to contribute more, considering they will be the primary beneficiaries and to date, they almost certainly have not contributed anywhere near enough for the services they have received

2. I disagree to the extent that the Tories have profited from the pandemic. Its true that some businesses will have used their relationships with ministers to get their foot in the door but lets not forget it is the civil service that sign off the contracts, not the ministers. It would be down to the civil service to ensure the tenders met the criteria. The Ministers themselves have no say, and can only make the introduction


you've not asked me. Perhaps it is the way you ask it.

are we supposed to be impressed that you studied a pseudo science at the college of knowledge. Economics has so many competing theories it cannot be taken seriously, the theory you adopt often depends on your politics (Keynsian, Chicago, Austrian etc). its at best an art

You literally said 'I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.' But you didn't then explain, so that's what I'm asking you to explain.

I didn't say tories on earlier posts have benefitted, I've said the ultra wealthy have which is true.

Well you patronised me by saying you need to explain with crayons why my posts are 'bollocks' so I thought I'd bring up that I actually have studied economics to knock you off your pedestal, most tories seem to have either learned economics from Rupert Murdoch or the ScHoOl oF lIfE

[Feedback]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

You literally said 'I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.' But you didn't then explain, so that's what I'm asking you to explain.

that's because I did not have the time nor the crayons.

I didn't say tories on earlier posts have benefitted, I've said the ultra wealthy have which is true.

but you did say it was down to their Tory mates, which isn't true.

Well you patronised me by saying you need to explain with crayons why my posts are 'bollocks' so I thought I'd bring up that I actually have studied economics to knock you off your pedestal, most tories seem to have either learned economics from Rupert Murdoch or the ScHoOl oF lIfE

I'm not on a pedestal, and I'm not sure advertising you've studied what is at best an art adds the credence you think it does.

[JamesWales]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

You literally said 'I'd explain why your posts are bollocks but I neither have the time nor the crayons needed.' But you didn't then explain, so that's what I'm asking you to explain.

I didn't say tories on earlier posts have benefitted, I've said the ultra wealthy have which is true.

Well you patronised me by saying you need to explain with crayons why my posts are 'bollocks' so I thought I'd bring up that I actually have studied economics to knock you off your pedestal, most tories seem to have either learned economics from Rupert Murdoch or the ScHoOl oF lIfE

You talk about Tories the way Tommy Robinson talks about islam.

It's very difficult to engage with people so politically partisan.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

You talk about Tories the way Tommy Robinson talks about islam.

It's very difficult to engage with people so politically partisan.

I think Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson are two sides of the same coin

Boris has plenty of form for racist insults

[Elwood Blues]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

I think Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson are two sides of the same coin

Boris has plenty of form for racist insults

Boris has said many stupid things

But he is nothing like Robinson

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Boris has said many stupid things

But he is nothing like Robinson

He's said many racist things

Just like Tommy Robinson

Just because he went to Eton and talks posh doesn't make his racist remarks any more forgivable

[life on mars]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

I think Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson are two sides of the same coin

Boris has plenty of form for racist insults

That's way off the mark ,Boris is a buffoon Robinson is evil

[ninian opinian]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Household bills will soar by more than £1,500 a year with families on the cusp of the biggest spending squeeze in nearly a decade, experts warn.

Take away £20 from the poorest put up NI. This country is fecked.