Starmer's vision quest

[Stevo 666]

I won't be taking any lessons from you.

They do say that lefties don't learn. This is one reason why 🙂

 

[Stevo 666]

Sure thing Stevo just for you, in just one sentence and in crayon.

National Insurance contributions are payroll‐based premiums levied by HMRC under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, collected into a discrete, legislatively ring-fenced “contributions account” entirely separate from general taxation revenues and administratively segregated so that neither HM Treasury nor the Exchequer can raid or reallocate them for unrelated spending, while DWP uses the accrued funds solely to establish contribution records, determine entitlement to specific contributory benefits—most notably the State Pension but also certain job-seeker’s allowances, bereavement payments, and other targeted social security measures—and calculate the precise pension amount based on qualifying years of contributions (including Class 3 voluntary top-ups and credits for caregiving or unemployment), all of which is governed by rigid statutory rules on calculation methodology, indexation, and uprating, publicly documented in detailed but dense guiditional protection for late-1970s cohorts to plan their retirements—so yes, NI is not “just another tax,” it’s a non-hypothecated levy ring-fenced by statute to fund defined social benefits, tracked meticulously against your National Insurance number, calculated in pence on every pay slip, and payable by employers and employees alike to support tomorrow’sance on GOV.UK, laid out in multiple Pensions Acts (notably 1995, 2007, and subsequent amendments) and clarified in explanatory booklets sent to contributors at key threshold ages, yet still obscured by bureaucratic jargon and buried in PDFs rather than boiled down into a simple infographic or live FAQ widget until recent years, meaning anyone demanding you reduce this to toddler-friendly bullet points is either trolling or doesn’t grasp that tens of millions of workers, many on zero-hour contracts or juggling multiple roles, depend on nuanced insights about qualifying thresholds, earnings bands, and trans pensions, unemployment coverage, and bereavement support, with full legal protection against diversion into the consolidated fund, because if you thought you could conflate it with Income Tax, you’ve clearly never read a single Parenting-style government leaflet or Hansard transcript, and that, dear friend, is why I’ll in future refuse to compress complex ideas into a neat, one-liner for your amusement.

​

That's more than none sentence. Fail again.

 

[Stevo 666]

This doesn't seem to have generated a lot of interest or discussion on this particular forum. Funny that. Sometimes what isn't being said tells you more about the way people's minds are working than what is.

True. It's probably the good old free leftie pass coming into play. Although the fact that she has resigned makes it kind of redundant.

 

[Stevo 666]

My comment was gender neutral considering everybody pre-retirement planning.

Not going to bother arguing with you any more. You rightly state that workplace discrimination against women is wrong but against me in "collective responsibility". Sorry not interested and as you are not "monkers" I'm growing my ignore list (doubling it).

Bye

There's a new leftie troll in town and they mean business

 

[monkers]

That's more than none sentence. Fail again.

Yes, one is more than none - I'll give you that.

 

[monkers]

There's a new leftie troll in town and they mean business

Do at least try to make your arguments stand up.

 

[monkers]

My comment was gender neutral considering everybody pre-retirement planning.

Not going to bother arguing with you any more. You rightly state that workplace discrimination against women is wrong but against me in "collective responsibility". Sorry not interested and as you are not "monkers" I'm growing my ignore list (doubling it).

Bye

Lightweight.

 

[Stevo 666]

Do at least try to make your arguments stand up.

It's not an argument, it's a statement. Do you not understand? 😉

 

[monkers]

It's not an argument, it's a statement. Do you not understand? 😉

Previously ...

Except that they're not ring fenced as has already been mentioned by Boldon Lad. Also £20bn in the scheme of the overall tax take and state expenditure is not huge - certainly less than Reeves likely shortfall.

That's a false statement in the first sentence. That's an opinion in the second, and an ill-formed one.

None of your arguing is related to fact.

It is a fact that NICs is ring-fenced in statute. That is a statement.

The sum that Reeves is trying to raise is about £50bn. It would be a modest sum if the wealthy were prepared to contribute, but too few of them are. They are happy to pay donations to political parties to protect themselves from wealth tax however.

Lord Bamford, along with his brother Mark Bamford, is currently under investigation by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) over alleged aggressive tax avoidance spanning two decades. The inquiry focuses on offshore family trusts in Bermuda that hold shares in the JCB empire, which the Bamfords inherited in 2001.

💰 Potential Tax Liability​

• The Bamford brothers could face a tax bill of over £500 million.
• This figure includes:
  • Unpaid tax on dividends from offshore-held shares
  • Interest on that unpaid tax
  • Penalties of up to 200%, as per HMRC guidance

🕵️‍♂️ Investigation Details​

• The HMRC probe has been ongoing for three years.
• It’s described as a serious investigation, typically launched only when HMRC suspects substantial tax loss.
• The Guardian reported that Lord Bamford has not yet informed parliamentary authorities of the investigation.

🧾 Political Implications​

• The Bamfords have donated over £10 million to the Conservative Party.
• A Labour MP has called for the party to return these donations if the allegations are proven.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

That's more than none sentence. Fail again.

A day and a half and that's the best you can do?

 

[Dorset Boy]

?

View attachment 9457

That's not true. Hansard says it has been around since the 1990s. The 2012 date will be when it became available to complete through the Gateway.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ecast application,information is in the table.

 

[monkers]

That's not true. Hansard says it has been around since the 1990s. The 2012 date will be when it became available to complete through the Gateway.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2007-06-05/debates/07060566000065/PensionsForecasts#:~:text=The state pension forecast application,information is in the table.

There's this from Copilot ...

🕰️ Predecessor to BR19: No Dedicated Forecast Form​

Before BR19 was introduced in November 2012, there was no standalone form specifically for requesting a State Pension forecast. Instead:

• People used the BR1 form (State Pension claim form) informally to request forecasts.
• Others contacted the Future Pension Centre by phone or letter to get a forecast manually.
• There was no official form number dedicated to forecasts prior to BR19.

So BR19 was the first formal, named application form for pension forecasts. It replaced a patchwork of informal methods and repurposed paperwork.

 

[monkers]

That's not true. Hansard says it has been around since the 1990s. The 2012 date will be when it became available to complete through the Gateway.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2007-06-05/debates/07060566000065/PensionsForecasts#:~:text=The state pension forecast application,information is in the table.

That's a good catch!

I pressed Copilot further using your evidence.

Wait. You said that BR19 wasn't introduced until Nov 2012. So how is it that it is being mentioned in Hansard in 2007?

You're absolutely right to question that—and your instincts are spot on. The BR19 form was in use well before 2012, despite some sources mistakenly citing that year as its "introduction."
🔍 Clarifying the confusion:

• The November 2012 date refers to a specific version of the BR19 form published on GOV.UK—not its original creation.
• In fact, BR19 was already being used by the Retirement Pension Forecasting Team and referenced in Hansard as early as 2007, as you noted. That exchange included monthly statistics on how many forecasts were processed via BR19 and telephone requests.

📜 So yes, BR19 was active and officially recognized in government operations well before 2012. The misunderstanding likely stems from the way online publication dates are sometimes mistaken for inception dates.

 

[briantrumpet]

That's not true. Hansard says it has been around since the 1990s. The 2012 date will be when it became available to complete through the Gateway.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2007-06-05/debates/07060566000065/PensionsForecasts#:~:text=The state pension forecast application,information is in the table.

Looks like Copilot is wrong then, since the Hansard entry is dated 5 June 2007 and specifically mentions BR19. Also interesting to note just how many people were requesting forecasts by phone then.

 

[briantrumpet]

That's a good catch!

I pressed Copilot further using your evidence.




You're absolutely right to question that—and your instincts are spot on. The BR19 form was in use well before 2012, despite some sources mistakenly citing that year as its "introduction."
🔍 Clarifying the confusion:

• The November 2012 date refers to a specific version of the BR19 form published on GOV.UK—not its original creation.
• In fact, BR19 was already being used by the Retirement Pension Forecasting Team and referenced in Hansard as early as 2007, as you noted. That exchange included monthly statistics on how many forecasts were processed via BR19 and telephone requests.

📜 So yes, BR19 was active and officially recognized in government operations well before 2012. The misunderstanding likely stems from the way online publication dates are sometimes mistaken for inception dates.

IIRC, @Dorset Boy does pensions professionally, so might know a bit more about it than Copilot. One to put in the AI fails thread, it seems. A single human knew more.