For most people it’s better thinking of it as a graduate tax until the date it’s written off. There’s a big issue though in my mind as to how much that will impact society as an increasing proportion of those earning have to pay it. Less money to buy a house, start a family etc.

We married in 1994, which appears close to the peak date for subsequent divorce. (Full disclosure - still together.). I would imagine as people typically take longer to wed now that removes many “early divorces” from the figures.

Indeed, and unlike the insurance market you don’t need to worry about health, where you live etc. that will influence the cost. It just starts getting paid at state retirement age (unless you decide to defer it.)

Without understating the alleged crime here, I really don’t understand why a relatively minor celebrity’s prosecution is more important than major world events.

Ah, silly me - I was always hopeless at numbers.

Sadly I’m still on 52, but tbf that probably is a fair reflection of the scientific contribution I’m going to make here going forward.

Should be at 4pm surely?

Finally the charts from earlier in the thread are from an excellent briefing paper in the House of Commons Library, which I recommend for anyone wanting to delve deeper into the subject. 12/12 researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CB...

With that mechanism there may need to be some allowance for years when the calculated increase was 0%, which might happen if earnings and prices increased rapidly but in different years. It shouldn't be insurmountable though. 11/

A fairer alternative to the TL would be a double lock, but indexed back to a starting point (say April 24), rather than calculated over discrete 12 month periods, so the year by year cherry picking effect would be removed. 10/