Member Info for Bunky1981

Big day for me. I got my last purchase in yesterday and after starting my buying at something like 27p two years ago (ouch) have finally got my average down to nearly single digits and and have exactly 1m shares. Whoop!

Definitely finished now. 50p or total capital loss, those are my only two exit options. Let the good times (hopefully) roll.

Totally off topic (mind you, nothing's actually happened for the last year, so may as well talk about something else), but does "retired early" mean? Genuine question. Earlier than the state pension? Earlier than the anticipated retirement age on your company pension? Earlier than you generally aniticipated? What's the actual measurement?

I'm just curious because I hear it alot. Particularly with people referring to FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early). I also hear people talking about retiring early in their 60s. So what is 'early retirement'?

if it's still below 12p next week. Good one :D

feel like i've been stuck in a 2 year vortex of people incorrectly saying the same thing.

HL say to leave at least 2 working days. But that assumes they see it an process it when you send it. So I'd make sure it's done asap, certainly by close of play tomorrow (Tuesday).

@spoon. all good. 'tis only the internet :)

@greenfish. Agreed.

@Rotherby -

- Agreed on the VAT. Just generally more oversite on all trades and "cash" businesses

- I appreciate that people may have had their pensions returned to them if they left an employer. But then why didn't they put that money back into a pension? It came from a pension, so just pay it back into your personal pension and get all the tax relief again, surely? I suspect the reality is that those sorts of things would have been seen as a windfall and were spent rather than saved. But who knows. I'm suspect that having a a few years penion contributions returned during one's career isn't the difference between freezing this winter or not though. More likely to be linked to the level of saving. It still blows my mind that every week at work we get people phoning up asking for their "tax free pension lump sum", like it's some sort of retirement bonus. Culturally we seem to see that 25% PCLS as some sort of windfall to be spent on a holiday, car, or gifted to the kids. Yet it's no different to just taking 25% out of your savings account, for no reason. Again, therefore often not the fault of the individual. Once explained and once it's demonstrated how powerful UFPLS can be, they steer away.

- Regarding the Liam Byrne quote. I don't believe I said anything that was incorrect. I agree in that I also believe that note was left as a joke. But I made no no comment on political parties. I find the Tories and Labour equally incompetent. The debt narrative is my most hated part of General Elections. It happens every time. The Tories always bang on about "we've reduced the deficit from when Labour were in power" and then Labour say "Actually debt has risen under the Tories!" And the partisan acoltyes of each party just listen to the statement that they want to hear. And nobody, NOBODY ever seems to say "actually, they're both telling the truth. But to explain that, we first need to explain to the 90% of the country that don't know the difference, why deficit is different to debt". But nobody ever does that. Because why would we educate our children in the absolute basics of personal finance, when they can be learning the invaluable list of Henry VIII's wives.

But most importantly, if we're arguing about which political party is the worst at fiscal management... then it avoids anybody asking the real question, which is why, in an alleged democracy, we only appear to be able to choose between two options that are both equally terrible with money, and have been for decades!

I don't really want to revive this... but I'm so surprised at how much you misinterpreted what I was saying, that I kind of feel obliged to as i don't like being misrepresented. (well, that and discussion on actual GGP is just relentlessly depressing atm).

I couldn't agree more with what you were saying. Hence my sarcastic finish "we don't have a money magic tree... unless you're Theresa May and need to bribe the DUP". i.e. I'm quite clearly agreeing with you that successive governments seem to find money for causes that suit their needs, but not those of "the great unwashed" who actually need it.

I was talking about maths, economics, reality, and what's affordable. That is not necessarily related (sadly) to what's morally and socially right.

In simpler terms, I think what I'm saying is that I don't believe we can honour the triple lock on state pensions without bringing even greater hardship on future generations. Not because I want pensioners to freeze to death.

The fact that this insane and bizarre proposal to cut the additional rate band from 45% to 40% is just muddying the water. Of COURSE we shouldn't be doing that. It's madness.

I've got a tonne of ideas about who SHOULD be taxed. (I'd start with 30% corp tax on any Ltd company that has one of the 4 necessary SIC codes to raise finance on residential property. i.e.... I'd hammer the private landlords who hide in Ltd companies). I certainly keep the 45% tax band. To remove it is insane, as is the flawed concept of trick down economics. I have loads more "obvious" view that simply don't suit a Tory government perception of what they believe their voterbase wants.

I'd also love to ban cash. This is my personal favourite (and lease popular) idea to massively increase the tax receipts overnight without changing. There is only one reason to use cash nowadays in a post covid world... and that's tax evasion. Pure and simple. We've all done it i'm sure, said "how much for cash?". It's pure and simple tax evasion. Nobody needs cash. SumUp machines cost vitually nothing( £30 one-off for the hadware and less than 1% per transaction), even for the ice cream van, or the plumber or anybody else. No excuse at all for using cash anymore. When you look at the % evaded by putting the costs of a job through, but then not turnover, it's not just a bit of Corp Tax. It's massive. Get rid of it.

Anyway... I could go on (clearly). We shouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. But my point was that obviously there are a thousand things that the government SHOULD be doing. Many of which may lead to them being able to honour the triple lock. But here isn't even a glimmer of them considering the suggestions of the many leading economists around them. In the mean time, I don't believe that honouring a triple lock, which could mean double digit payrises for the next half a decade, is realistic or "fair" on the those who are in the workforce and facing all the same problems plus more. Tha

@wash1 -

But this is sort of my point. Obviously you've been very unfortunate and had to retire early due to medical circumstances and presusmbly no insurance against it. My condolences and I hope there are friends/family to support you one way or another during that period. I've got to be very careful how I phrase this, because I don't want it to sound callous.

When you say "due a nice rise", why? Where's the maths to support that? Where do you propose the money comes from? "Due a nice rise" would suggest that wherever your (and my) tax/NI money went, it has performed over and above expectations and therefore we're due some sort of dividend or greater return. This is the bit I don't get.

In the immortal words of Liam Byrne in 2010 note to his successor "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck!"

The money comes from the public purse. The public purse is funded by taxation and borrowing. So either we pay more tax or we borrow more. if you want to pay more tax, fine. We'll increase the state pension by 5% and increase income tax at basic rate by 20%. nil sum game (please ignore the gross/net inaccuracy for the pedants out there).

Or, more likely, we borrow even more money for massive pension rises and then what? Kick the can down the road for another generation? Make no mistake that everytime the state pension is increased, it's the workforce footing the bill. Without the same promise.

If you sat down and worked out how much NI was paid over a 45 year career according to national average earnings for each year, then added the typical cost to the NHS and social care of later life care for a single individual, and used historic growth rates to get an estimate of what would happen if you'd put that money into a simple tracker fund...it's still miles apart. (yes, I have done it in the past). So I don't feel that we're not "owed" very much at all.

There is a social contract in place between us and our governments that they'll take a bit and they'll look after us. So in that respect, yes, we're owed a pension. But only morally. Only to the government at the time. As we know, even if it's the same party, you can kick out one PM and the next one will be ****ging off their own party's policies within a week. So I do feel that we're not "due" anything.

Successive governments have simply made promises that they can't keep, while using our money poorly and inefficiently. Never looking beyond the next election. It's not exactly a conspiracy theory. It shouldn't be "you should be raising my pension in line with inflation because I worked 50 years". It should be "why the hell are you unable to raise my pension with inflation, without submitting my grandchildren to a life of indentured servitude?"

Again, not pointed at you personally. I don't want anybody to go without. But we can't just magic money out of thin air... well... unless you're Theresa May and you need the DUP onboard to win an el

...at the time.

@WelshFalcon - I did think before I typed. I'm intimately close to this subject for a variety of professional reasons.

I'll preface by saying that the "enemy" here is successive government on both sides barely being fit to stack shelves, let alone run a major global economy. It's not the pensioners, with their unencumbered houses that they could purchase at much lower ratios to gross salary than the current workforce. And not the youngsters who have the temerity to spend a comparatively inconsequential amount on a mobile phone.

There should have been a sovereign wealth fund years ago that NI contributions went into, and usustainable promises of any defined benefit type of state pension should never have been promised during the 1900s. Although in their defence, long term markets were virtually a no brainer back then, so I can see how they made the mistake.

If "most people" only have the state pension to live off, then what were they doing during their working life?

The figure is nearer 1 in 5 people will be relying solely on the state pension when retiring this year. That figure will, admittedly, be skewed by people with virtually no personal or workplace pensions.. but that do still have one.

I'm curious what makes you think that this is the exclusive suffering of the pensioner? I know the numbers. As has been pointed out above. No mortgages and plenty of equity in the house for a lifetime mortgage if it's really that bad (but harrumph harrumph, that totally unintended massive tax free return was earmarked for the inheritance one day, not for supporting my own retirement).

Meanwhile, that young family with incomes of £25k each. Childcare fees that completely wipes out mum's earnings anyway as she goes to work to literally earn nothing... while they have to drop their kids off to somebody else to raise, just because mum (or dad) needs to keep working so they don't fall off the career ladder and can't get a job when they go back again after maternity leave. Paying extortionate rent every month, while knowing that every year that goes by, the window of opporutnity is closing that would give them the 25 years they need to buy a home and then pay off an entire mortgage in that time. Otherwise leaving them with no home and therefore no viable option to retire anyway (regardless of state pension or not). feeding a family with children every week instead of a family of only 1 or 2. Paying national insurance. spiralling transport costs to get to their jobs. The list is endless. So does my heart bleed exclusively for pensioners? No, not really.

My heart DOES however bleed for every person in this country, including pensioners. We've all been let down. All been failed for years. But we're decades too late to change it. We're all victims of poor leadership. I just don't like this divisive narrative that infers one generation is doing okay while the other freezes. As Cameron said "we're all in this together". Not sure he realised at t

If you think the pensioners have it bad, imagine how the workforce feel. Most of them would dream of a 3% payrise, unfortunately.

As a member of the workforce whose taxes are paying for the impossible promises made by governments 40 years ago, I'd be furious if they honoured the triple lock. I say that also as an (utterly embarassed and ashamed) Tory voter.

I'm genuinely trying to understand what the point of a broker note is.

I'm going to assume Occam's razor here. Could the 1.5m taken out yesterday not simply be a trader putting a £120k bet that yesterday's bounce was a bit too high and it would pare today? Which, so far, appears to have been the right call... for now.

I'm going to buy a ticket with those numbers... just because I reckon £2 is an absolute bargain for what would be the most exquisite moment if it turned out that the guy asking for a crystal ball, was holding it in his hand all along.

as you say, that last part in particular is very encouraging.

Well at least today has established that it's not a declining SP that leads to people bickering on here :D

(runs for cover)

Tom, stop looking for an argument where there isn't one. I took the Queen's shilling for a good few years, had nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for her, and was likely aware of her passing well before you were.

It was you who brought up the completely unrelated 15 PMs. My comment was simply lamenting that she had to tolerate such a poor set of governments in her final few years, given how many comparatively impressive PMs she was fortunate enough to serve on her behalf in the many decades before. Now calm down.

@TomE - I honestly cannot work out how you managed to misinterpret my comment quite so spectacularly. Either way, I'll leave you to it.

Sadly, I suspect it's all very imminent and very unlikely that we'll be seeing her again. What an incredible woman. There will never be another like her.

@TomE... 15, of which more than a quarter have been in the most recent Tory administration. How utterly depressing.