Broadly in 1995 (or “legacy”) pension scheme, each year you got 1/80th of your “final salary” as a pension & 3/80th a tax free lump sum
1/ A thread [1/2]about your NHS pensions, tax & the age discrmination “McCloud” case👇
OK this is complicated stuff, Im going to take you through it step by step. But its important, and will affect your pension, so buckle up and pay attention!
Please share & RT/share awareness
Broadly in 1995 (or “legacy”) pension scheme, each year you got 1/80th of your “final salary” as a pension & 3/80th a tax free lump sum
● CARE (not fin sal)
● 1/54ths (not 80ths/60ths), “revalued” at 1.5%/yr
● State pension age (not 60 or 65)
● Final salary link maintained for pre-2015 pension
Government ignored him and decided to either fully protect those closest (full protection) or just behind this cohort (tapered protection)
Whoops
contin/ 26.. https://t.co/jSvpkEyzj0
Cont\U0001f447
— Dr Tony Goldstone \U0001f499 (@goldstone_tony) February 13, 2021
26/ If you have paid AA tax between 1995-22 it is likely your charges will be lower in 1995 than in 2015 scheme. This is because the AA rules are particularly unfair to members of 2 schemes. If your AA charges go down during any of the remedy period, you can claim a refund
More from Finance
He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...
... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:
Ivor Cummins BE (Chem) is a former R&D Manager at HP (sourcre: https://t.co/Wbf5scf7gn), turned Content Creator/Podcast Host/YouTube personality. (Call it what you will.)
— Steve (@braidedmanga) November 17, 2020
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.
Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9
Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."
I wonder why...
Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x
Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.
Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
All NL-customers at British banks may thus be kicked out on brexit.
Thread
/1
If we start with the capital requirements directive, it says attracting deposits is forbidden. In article 9.
https://t.co/RYl7SXligC
Now the translation of that rule into Dutch law is slightly expanded to not only prohibit attracting deposits, but to also prohibit, having those deposits under custody ('ter beschikking hebben').
That's not in EU law, but it is in our Dutch law.
https://t.co/PsbWfNY3PA
So if you wonder how this would work out for UK banks and Payment institutions servicing Dutch customers. Have a read at the technical explanation of DNB, the financial supervisor and their summarising table.
https://t.co/LL0fAnYkRJ
Passive servicing of Dutch is not allowed!
Any bank or PSP in the UK that continues to serve Dutch customers (as in retail customers, professional players are excepted) can thus be subject to fines and policing under Dutch law.
Meaning we not only have Accidental American issues in payments, but also Accidental Dutchies
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?