Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

1…200201203205206…435

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    This perspective I found interesting:



    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,010
    rick_chasey said:

    This perspective I found interesting:



    Yeah but it's cobblers because we aren't sending children to the countryside and building bomb shelters in the back garden. Twatter, honestly.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    whoosh.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,187
    Possibly minor details but....
    1. We are not at war. Yet.
    2. The economic shocks are not at full impact. Yet.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    Stevo_666 said:

    @Ben6899

    Suppose I should page you back to the thread...



    Thank you @Stevo_666 I will have a read through that link!
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,010
    edited May 2022
    rick_chasey said:

    whoosh.

    Post something#, chose sides based on replies. Classic RC tactic.

    Bit like quoting a 40 page Financial Times article that about 4 people in the UK read in full, with a generally clever sounding remark like "this is an interesting analysis", then deciding which bit makes you sound most interesting later.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,127
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    whoosh.

    Post something#, chose sides based on replies. Classic RC tactic.

    Bit like quoting a 40 page Financial Times article that about 4 people in the UK read in full, with a generally clever sounding remark like "this is an interesting analysis", then deciding which bit makes you sound most interesting later.
    Maybe Rick could put in the effort to explain what he finds interesting about it and why. Then we can be bothered to comment.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,127
    edited May 2022
    Ben6899 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    @Ben6899

    Suppose I should page you back to the thread...



    Thank you @Stevo_666 I will have a read through that link!
    Re the pensions, just to be clear it's only needed if you make additional pension contributions out of post tax income as Pangolin says. If your employer makes contributions to the pension scheme, or you make them by deduction from your pay packet then it should all be dealt with at source and you don't need to file to get the extra tax benefit.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Stevo_666 said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    @Ben6899

    Suppose I should page you back to the thread...



    Thank you @Stevo_666 I will have a read through that link!
    Re the pensions, just to be clear it's only needed if you make additional pension contributions out of post tax income as Pangolin says. If your employer makes contributions to the pension scheme, or you make them by deduction from your pay packet then it should all be dealt with at source and you don't need to file to get the extra tax benefit.
    Sorry, but this is wrong information
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-your-private-pension/pension-tax-relief

    "You can get tax relief on private pension contributions worth up to 100% of your annual earnings.

    You get the tax relief automatically if your:

    employer takes workplace pension contributions out of your pay before deducting Income Tax. This is referring to a salary sacrifice scheme
    rate of Income Tax is 20% - your pension provider will claim it as tax relief and add it to your pension pot (‘relief at source’) this is saying if you only pay 20% tax"

    "When you have to claim tax relief
    You may be able to claim tax relief on pension contributions if:

    you pay Income Tax at a rate above 20% and your pension provider claims the first 20% for you (relief at source)
    your pension scheme is not set up for automatic tax relief
    someone else pays into your pension"

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited May 2022
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    whoosh.

    Post something#, chose sides based on replies. Classic RC tactic.

    Bit like quoting a 40 page Financial Times article that about 4 people in the UK read in full, with a generally clever sounding remark like "this is an interesting analysis", then deciding which bit makes you sound most interesting later.
    I always thought sharing reading stuff that people have found interesting and relevant was a good thing. We can’t all read everything so recommendations are good no? Not least if they spark debate.

    After all they’re much better at articulating this stuff than we are - that’s why they’re published writers and we are not.

    It’s quite a lot of effort to paraphrase articles especially when the link is just there for people to read themselves.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,010
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    whoosh.

    Post something#, chose sides based on replies. Classic RC tactic.

    Bit like quoting a 40 page Financial Times article that about 4 people in the UK read in full, with a generally clever sounding remark like "this is an interesting analysis", then deciding which bit makes you sound most interesting later.
    I always thought sharing reading stuff that people have found interesting and relevant was a good thing. We can’t all read everything so recommendations are good no? Not least if they spark debate.

    After all they’re much better at articulating this stuff than we are - that’s why they’re published writers and we are not.

    It’s quite a lot of effort to paraphrase articles especially when the link is just there for people to read themselves.
    Not that hard to elaborate on your thoughts regarding a tweet though.

    I suspect you agreed with them, because you are slightly snowflake yourself.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,381
    edited May 2022
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    whoosh.

    Post something#, chose sides based on replies. Classic RC tactic.

    Bit like quoting a 40 page Financial Times article that about 4 people in the UK read in full, with a generally clever sounding remark like "this is an interesting analysis", then deciding which bit makes you sound most interesting later.
    I always thought sharing reading stuff that people have found interesting and relevant was a good thing. We can’t all read everything so recommendations are good no? Not least if they spark debate.

    After all they’re much better at articulating this stuff than we are - that’s why they’re published writers and we are not.

    It’s quite a lot of effort to paraphrase articles especially when the link is just there for people to read themselves.
    I clicked through out of curiosity, thinking there must be a more detailed argument or an article, but there seem to be just those two tweets with one unsupported comparison. I don't have a problem with the general idea that the significance of historical events becomes exaggerated and embroidered over time - see almost every country's foundation story; the Battle of Hastings could easily have gone the other way and then would have been just another battle - but those two tweets don't provide convincing evidence or eloquent arguments.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    whoosh.

    Post something#, chose sides based on replies. Classic RC tactic.

    Bit like quoting a 40 page Financial Times article that about 4 people in the UK read in full, with a generally clever sounding remark like "this is an interesting analysis", then deciding which bit makes you sound most interesting later.
    I always thought sharing reading stuff that people have found interesting and relevant was a good thing. We can’t all read everything so recommendations are good no? Not least if they spark debate.

    After all they’re much better at articulating this stuff than we are - that’s why they’re published writers and we are not.

    It’s quite a lot of effort to paraphrase articles especially when the link is just there for people to read themselves.
    I clicked through out of curiosity, thinking there must be a more detailed argument or an article, but there seem to be just those two tweets with one unsupported comparison. I don't have a problem with the general idea that the significance of historical events becomes exaggerated and embroidered over time - see almost every country's foundation story; the Battle of Hastings could easily have gone the other way and then would have been just another battle - but those two tweets don't provide convincing evidence or eloquent arguments.
    And that is before we pull apart his comparison of a campaign fought in an empty desert between two small professional armies that I have never seen referred to as “bloody”

    I wonder why he did not use the battle of the Somme, siege of Leningrad, firebombing of Tokyo or battle of Okinawa?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    I do share the view that the past looms larger than the present, and sometimes when big things are happening it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees as we are in it.

    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,787
    rick_chasey said:

    I do share the view that the past looms larger than the present, and sometimes when big things are happening it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees as we are in it.

    Don't think I agree with that. I would need some examples to consider.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,010
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I do share the view that the past looms larger than the present, and sometimes when big things are happening it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees as we are in it.

    Don't think I agree with that. I would need some examples to consider.
    I also disagree with that. I think it's the other way around and those tweets reflect a bias towards the present.

    Time will tell whether we are living through the start of another world war, but it is not reasonable at this stage to pretend that we are somehow in the same position as those who did live through one or two of them.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,381
    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I do share the view that the past looms larger than the present, and sometimes when big things are happening it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees as we are in it.

    Don't think I agree with that. I would need some examples to consider.
    I also disagree with that. I think it's the other way around and those tweets reflect a bias towards the present.

    Time will tell whether we are living through the start of another world war, but it is not reasonable at this stage to pretend that we are somehow in the same position as those who did live through one or two of them.
    Those who did probably didn't think of either as World Wars until well into the conflict. And WWI was not the first.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,127
    morstar said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    @Ben6899

    Suppose I should page you back to the thread...



    Thank you @Stevo_666 I will have a read through that link!
    Re the pensions, just to be clear it's only needed if you make additional pension contributions out of post tax income as Pangolin says. If your employer makes contributions to the pension scheme, or you make them by deduction from your pay packet then it should all be dealt with at source and you don't need to file to get the extra tax benefit.
    Sorry, but this is wrong information
    You will be, as you are wrong.

    In a salary sacrifice scheme, you reduce your gross earnings by an amount equal to the pension contribution from the employee - so you automatically get tax relief at your top marginal rate (in Ben's case, 40%).

    https://thepeoplespension.co.uk/salary-sacrifice/#:~:text=Salary sacrifice pension tax relief,a lower amount of salary.
    https://fleximize.com/articles/015428/tax-relief-salary-sacrifice-pensions

    Quote from second article:
    "With a salary sacrifice scheme, there is no additional tax relief to claim because the employee has been taxed on a lower amount of salary already."
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Stevo_666 said:

    morstar said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    @Ben6899

    Suppose I should page you back to the thread...



    Thank you @Stevo_666 I will have a read through that link!
    Re the pensions, just to be clear it's only needed if you make additional pension contributions out of post tax income as Pangolin says. If your employer makes contributions to the pension scheme, or you make them by deduction from your pay packet then it should all be dealt with at source and you don't need to file to get the extra tax benefit.
    Sorry, but this is wrong information
    You will be, as you are wrong.

    In a salary sacrifice scheme, you reduce your gross earnings by an amount equal to the pension contribution from the employee - so you automatically get tax relief at your top marginal rate (in Ben's case, 40%).

    https://thepeoplespension.co.uk/salary-sacrifice/#:~:text=Salary sacrifice pension tax relief,a lower amount of salary.
    https://fleximize.com/articles/015428/tax-relief-salary-sacrifice-pensions

    Quote from second article:
    "With a salary sacrifice scheme, there is no additional tax relief to claim because the employee has been taxed on a lower amount of salary already."
    It has already been stated that is how salary sacrifice works.
    We are discussing where a scheme is not salary sacrifice and the need to claim.

    Keep up at the back.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,010
    rick_chasey said:

    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.

    No one knows the point RC.

    There are two superficial tweets that you simultaneously agree with and disagree with, and we are all too stupid to understand what nuance you so clearly see.

    Honestly why am I even bothering to engage with such a contrary pillock? This is like the argument sketch.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.

    No one knows the point RC.

    There are two superficial tweets that you simultaneously agree with and disagree with, and we are all too stupid to understand what nuance you so clearly see.

    Honestly why am I even bothering to engage with such a contrary pillock? This is like the argument sketch.
    He's talking about one theatre in the war. I'm not being contrary, you're reading the "North African campaign" as the entire world war, which i think we can all agree it isn't, right?

    It's just a reference for scale. Not a view the current Russia/Ukraine war as a precursor to a world war or anything of that nature, right?
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.

    No one knows the point RC.

    There are two superficial tweets that you simultaneously agree with and disagree with, and we are all too stupid to understand what nuance you so clearly see.

    Honestly why am I even bothering to engage with such a contrary pillock? This is like the argument sketch.
    He's talking about one theatre in the war. I'm not being contrary, you're reading the "North African campaign" as the entire world war, which i think we can all agree it isn't, right?

    It's just a reference for scale. Not a view the current Russia/Ukraine war as a precursor to a world war or anything of that nature, right?
    the idiocy of the comparison is such that it is impossible to ascertain what the point is.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.

    No one knows the point RC.

    There are two superficial tweets that you simultaneously agree with and disagree with, and we are all too stupid to understand what nuance you so clearly see.

    Honestly why am I even bothering to engage with such a contrary pillock? This is like the argument sketch.
    He's talking about one theatre in the war. I'm not being contrary, you're reading the "North African campaign" as the entire world war, which i think we can all agree it isn't, right?

    It's just a reference for scale. Not a view the current Russia/Ukraine war as a precursor to a world war or anything of that nature, right?
    the idiocy of the comparison is such that it is impossible to ascertain what the point is.
    Fair enough. Seemed really obvious to me, but YMMV obviously.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,187
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I do share the view that the past looms larger than the present, and sometimes when big things are happening it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees as we are in it.

    Don't think I agree with that. I would need some examples to consider.
    I also disagree with that. I think it's the other way around and those tweets reflect a bias towards the present.

    Time will tell whether we are living through the start of another world war, but it is not reasonable at this stage to pretend that we are somehow in the same position as those who did live through one or two of them.
    Those who did probably didn't think of either as World Wars until well into the conflict. And WWI was not the first.
    What I take from "The war to end all wars" is that humans never learn.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    I'd like to thank all who chipped in with help and advice re my tax situation. I have since confirmed that my pension is salary sacrifice so, at the moment, all is in order.

    I will be setting up AVCs in good time, so @Stevo_666 I will probably be back here again to make sure I am not being fleeced!

    :smiley:
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,010
    edited May 2022
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.

    No one knows the point RC.

    There are two superficial tweets that you simultaneously agree with and disagree with, and we are all too stupid to understand what nuance you so clearly see.

    Honestly why am I even bothering to engage with such a contrary pillock? This is like the argument sketch.
    He's talking about one theatre in the war. I'm not being contrary, you're reading the "North African campaign" as the entire world war, which i think we can all agree it isn't, right?

    It's just a reference for scale. Not a view the current Russia/Ukraine war as a precursor to a world war or anything of that nature, right?
    So, a bit like comparing Ben Nevis to the top 4000ft of Everest then. For perspective, because indeed those two things are comparable.

    A helpful comparison though?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,787
    edited May 2022
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.

    No one knows the point RC.

    There are two superficial tweets that you simultaneously agree with and disagree with, and we are all too stupid to understand what nuance you so clearly see.

    Honestly why am I even bothering to engage with such a contrary pillock? This is like the argument sketch.
    He's talking about one theatre in the war. I'm not being contrary, you're reading the "North African campaign" as the entire world war, which i think we can all agree it isn't, right?

    It's just a reference for scale. Not a view the current Russia/Ukraine war as a precursor to a world war or anything of that nature, right?
    the idiocy of the comparison is such that it is impossible to ascertain what the point is.
    Separately, as BR's WWII expert, can you tell me why people go on about Rommel in North Africa? He's one of only two generals I could name from history.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    You've misread that if you think that is the point, but anyway.

    No one knows the point RC.

    There are two superficial tweets that you simultaneously agree with and disagree with, and we are all too stupid to understand what nuance you so clearly see.

    Honestly why am I even bothering to engage with such a contrary pillock? This is like the argument sketch.
    He's talking about one theatre in the war. I'm not being contrary, you're reading the "North African campaign" as the entire world war, which i think we can all agree it isn't, right?

    It's just a reference for scale. Not a view the current Russia/Ukraine war as a precursor to a world war or anything of that nature, right?
    the idiocy of the comparison is such that it is impossible to ascertain what the point is.
    Separately, as BR's WWII expert, can you tell me why people go on about Rommel in North Africa? He's one of only two generals I could name from history.
    It is a good question with probably no definitive answer. It is true that he did nothing bad and was involved in a plot to kill Hitler other than that I think he was seen as an old school honourable soldier.

    Other factors are that he was fighting in a desert with no danger of civilian deaths

    and most importantly he lost (twice) and of course calling your vanquished opponent polishes up your own reputation.

    And lastly if you were putting together a cricket match between good and bad Germans you would struggle with the "good" which suggests he did not have much competition as everybody's favourite German general.

    And finally I bet my house you can name more than 2 general from history, there are more than that who have gone on to become US President

Categories