No, I’ve certainly not forgotten that income tax exists. You were referring to 400k in cash so I just commented on that.
Ageism should we tolerate it?
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
No, I’ve certainly not forgotten that income tax exists. You were referring to 400k in cash so I just commented on that.
Note that the chart is household wealth, not individual
Good spot. That makes me think maybe it's due to that bracket including boomerang kids living with their parents in expensive property, although I would have expected the other wealth to be higher (i.e. why is household pension so low).
Regardless, even for a couple £79k property wealth in 20s isn't bad going.
I've not seen the original data source but, from a vague memory for this sort of thing, isn't it based on the age of the main earner or something?
Seems like nonsense to me, tbh.
Sub-20% ish home ownership for late 20s. Doesn't really add up
Boomerang kids could impact that, e.g. the main earner in the household might be late 20s but they are living in their parents house that's worth hundreds of thousands but was bought a long time ago so has huge equity even if the parents don't earn that much.
Then the average will be boosted by property developers and what have you with loads of equity.
However it still seems high, it's also by fair the most extreme ratio of PropertyWealth:FinancialWealth (i.e. they have more than 20x as much Property Wealth as Finance Wealth) and they have well over half their wealth in property (no other age bracket comes close). In some ways this makes sense because people of that age probably plough all their money into a house deposit rather than savings and investments, but as you say, if less than 20% actually own property, then it's a bit odd because all the people saving up for a house who haven't yet bought should have money in financial wealth.
Then the average will be boosted by property developers and what have you with loads of equity.
However it still seems high, it's also by fair the most extreme ratio of PropertyWealth:FinancialWealth (i.e. they have more than 20x as much Property Wealth as Finance Wealth) and they have well over half their wealth in property (no other age bracket comes close). In some ways this makes sense because people of that age probably plough all their money into a house deposit rather than savings and investments, but as you say, if less than 20% actually own property, then it's a bit odd because all the people saving up for a house who haven't yet bought should have money in financial wealth.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 12,968
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
Yeah I shop there a lot to be honest. Their pizzas are nice too. These were amazing but they stopped them now:
Highly recommended their Jalfrezi and Madras too. The chicken in them are usually big chunks and you get a considerable helping, chicken is decent too not rubbery crap.
I love a Madras and have been noted to adding chopped Scotch Bonnet to my tomato soup, so I have noted this post
Pensioners pay tax
There is plenty of ageism in this thread.
Iceland is a private company , they can arrange their affairs as they see fit in a democratic capitalist world.
PS not many OAP's will be buying the carolina reaper option. Breathing can be hard enough.
PPS we did steal all the best music.
Iceland is a private company , they can arrange their affairs as they see fit in a democratic capitalist world.
PS not many OAP's will be buying the carolina reaper option. Breathing can be hard enough.
PPS we did steal all the best music.
You're ignoring that the figures above are net.
Did you declare the source of the data quoted? A quick reread of the thread and I cannot see it.
I don't see any column that looks like average income.
What is financial wealth in that table?
@LabR@t is correctr tax is paid on any income above the allowance.
Last edited:
Replace "over 60s" with one of the following:
- White people
- Men
- Christians
- heterosexuals
- non-disabled people
Still don't see a problem with it?
Doesn't really bother me TBH, I dont shop at Iceland, but not sure how you can justify arbitrarly picking and choosing which legally protected characteristics are OK to discriminate against?
Not on cash which was what I was replying to. But sure, on pension income they would.
Not really no. Allowing for your obvious strawman examples. All such offers would have to be legal, decent and not likely to cause reputational damage.
People are not a protected category, nor are people over or under 60. A very arbitrary cut off as it neither means in work or retired.
Age is a protected characteristic though, which I think is what Haggisman is getting at.
Which strawman?
Equality Act 2010
An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the...
Age is as much a protected characteristic as any of the examples I gave.
Like I said, this in itself doesn't really bother me, but why is giving all over 60s a discount OK, but giving all straight white men wouldn't be? It's either a protected characteristic or it isn't.
For all practical purposes stating that "Iceland are increasing prices for all under 60s" would have the same effect, but I bet people wouldn't be happy about that!
I doubt the wealthy ones shop in iceland.