Connect with us

First Mining Files NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Duparquet Gold Project, Quebec

First Mining Files NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Duparquet Gold Project, Quebec
PR Newswire
VANCOUVER, BC, Oct. 6, 2022

VANCOUVER, BC, Oct. 6, 2022 /PRNewswire/ – First Mining Gold Corp. (“First Mining”…

Published

on

First Mining Files NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Duparquet Gold Project, Quebec

PR Newswire

VANCOUVER, BC, Oct. 6, 2022 /PRNewswire/ - First Mining Gold Corp. ("First Mining" or the "Company") (TSX: FF) (OTCQX: FFMGF) (FRANKFURT: FMG) is pleased to announce it has filed on SEDAR a Technical Report prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101") on the Duparquet Gold Project ("Duparquet" or the "Project") titled "NI 43-101 Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate Update for the Duparquet Project, Quebec, Canada," dated October 6, 2022 with an effective date of September 12, 2022.

The full Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE") Technical Report prepared by InnovExplo Inc. in Val-d'Or (Quebec), can be found on the Company's website at www.firstmininggold.com and on SEDAR under the Company's issuer profile at www.sedar.com.

The Duparquet Gold Project is a multi-million ounce advanced exploration and mining development asset located in the Abitibi region of the province of Quebec, approximately 50 km north of the city of Rouyn-Noranda. The Duparquet deposit hosts a gold Resource of 3.4 Moz in the Measured and Indicated category, and an additional 1.6 Moz Au Inferred Resource derived from the master database of drill data, which contains 904 holes totalling 270,119m and 173,831 sampled intervals.  Existing infrastructure at the Project site includes paved provincial highways from Rouyn-Noranda to the south and LaSarre to the north and direct access to Quebec's hydroelectric power grid.  In addition, the near-by communities of Duparquet, Ruoyn-Noranda and LaSarre have strong histories of sustainable mining practices.

Table 1: Duparquet Gold Project Mineral Resource Estimate

Area

Cut-off

Measured Resource

Indicated Resource

Inferred Resource

(mining
method)

(g/t)

Tonnage (t)

Au

Ounces

Tonnage (t)

Au

Ounces

Tonnage (t)

Au

Ounces



(g/t)

(g/t)

(g/t)

Open Pit

0.40

163,700

1.37

7,200

59,410,600

1.52

2,909,600

28,333,000

1.07

970,400

UG Mining

1.50

-

-

-

5,506,900

2.26

399,300

9,038,900

2.29

665,600

Tailings

0.40

19,900

2.03

1,300

4,105,200

0.93

123,200

-

-

-

Total


183,600

1.43

8,500

69,022,700

1.55

3,432,100

37,371,900

1.36

1,636,000

Notes to accompany the Mineral Resource Estimate:

  1. The independent and qualified persons for the mineral resource estimate, as defined by NI 43 101, are Marina Iund, P.Geo., Carl Pelletier, P.Geo., Simon Boudreau, P.Eng. from InnovExplo Inc. and Guy Comeau, P.Eng. from Soutex. The effective date of the estimate is September 12, 2022.
  2. These mineral resources are not mineral reserves, as they do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is currently insufficient data to define these Inferred mineral resources as Indicated or Measured mineral resources and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an Indicated or Measured mineral resource category.  The mineral resource estimate follows current CIM Definition Standards.
  3. The results are presented in situ and undiluted and have reasonable prospects of economic viability.
  4. In-pit and Underground estimates encompass sixty (60) mineralized domains and one dilution envelop using the grade of the adjacent material when assayed or a value of zero when not assayed; The tailings estimate encompass four (4) zones.
  5. In-pit and Underground: High-grade capping of 25 g/t Au; Tailings: High-grade capping of 13.0 g/t Au for Zone 1, 3.5 g/t Au for Zone 2, 1.7 g/t Au for Zone 3 and 2.2 g/t Au for Zone 4. High-grade capping supported by statistical analysis was done on raw assay data before compositing.
  6. In-pit and Underground: The estimate used a sub-block model in GEOVIA SURPAC 2021 with a unit block size of 5m x 5m x 5m and a minimum block size of 1.25m x 1.25m x1.25m. Grade interpolation was obtained by ID2 using hard boundaries. Tailings: The estimate used a block model in GEOVIA GEMS with a block size of 5m x 5m x 1m. Grade interpolation was obtained by ID2 using hard boundaries.
  7. In-pit and Underground: A density value of 2.73 g/cm3 was used for the mineralized domains and the envelope. A density value of 2.00 g/cm3 was used for the overburden. A density value of 1.00 g/cm3 was used for the excavation solids (drifts and stopes) assumed to be filled with water. Tailings: A fixed density of 1.45 g/cm3 was used in zones and waste.
  8. In-pit and Underground: The mineral resource estimate is classified as Measured, Indicated and Inferred. The measured category is defined by blocks having a volume of at least 25% within an envelope built at a distance of 10 m around existing channel samples. The Indicated category is defined by blocks meeting at least one (1) of the following conditions: Blocks falling within a 15-m buffer surrounding existing stopes and/or blocks for which the average distance to composites is less than 45 m. A clipping polygon was generated to constrain Indicated resources for each of the sixty (60) mineralized domains. Only the blocks for which reasonable geological and grade continuity have been demonstrated were selected. All remaining interpolated blocks were classified as Inferred resources. Blocks interpolated in the envelope were all classified as Inferred resources. Tailings: The Measured and Indicated categories were defined based on the drill hole spacing (Measured: Zones 1 and 2 = 30m x 30m grid; Indicated: Zone 3 = 100m x 100m grid and Zone 4 = 200m x 200m grid).
  9. In-pit and Underground: The mineral resource estimate is locally pit-constrained with a bedrock slope angle of 50° and an overburden slope angle of 30°. The out-pit mineral resource met the reasonable prospect for eventual economic extraction by having constraining volumes applied to any blocks (potential underground extraction scenario) using DSO. It is reported at a rounded cut-off grade of 0.4 g/t Au (in-pit and tailings) and 1.5 g/t Au (UG). The cut-off grades were calculated using the following parameters: mining cost = CA$70.00 (UG); processing cost = CA$11.9 to 17.0; G&A = CA$8.75; refining and selling costs = CA$ 5.00; gold price = US$ 1,650/oz; USD:CAD exchange rate = 1.31; and mill recovery = 93.9%. The cut-off grades should be re-evaluated in light of future prevailing market conditions (metal prices, exchange rates, mining costs etc.).
  10. The number of metric tons and ounces was rounded to the nearest hundred, following the recommendations in NI 43 101. Any discrepancies in the totals are due to rounding effects.
  11. The authors are not aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title-related, taxation, socio-political, or marketing issues, or any other relevant issue not reported in the Technical Report, that could materially affect the Mineral Resource Estimate.

Table 2: Cut-off grade sensitivity for the in-pit and underground portions of the Duparquet Gold Project

Area
(Mining Method)

Cut-off

(g/t)

Measured Resource

Indicated Resource

Inferred Resource

Tonnage (t)

Au

(g/t)

Ounces

Tonnage (t)

Au

(g/t)

Ounces

Tonnage (t)

Au

(g/t)

Ounces

Open Pit

0.7

137,321

1.53

6,755

23,142,210

2.05

1,525,279

2,592,695

1.62

135,038

0.65

141,757

1.5

6,836

25,666,698

1.98

1,633,902

3,334,098

1.48

158,647

0.6

149,158

1.46

7,001

32,690,577

1.86

1,954,908

5,716,620

1.34

246,283

0.55

154,634

1.42

7,060

36,556,977

1.77

2,080,340

7,727,020

1.23

305,568

0.5

156,938

1.41

7,122

41,152,335

1.70

2,253,068

11,007,061

1.13

400,881

0.45

161,081

1.39

7,187

53,548,726

1.58

2,722,586

22,032,449

1.16

824,601

0.4

163,709

1.37

7,222

59,410,612

1.52

2,909,551

28,332,980

1.07

970,424

0.35

165,800

1.36

7,248

66,307,600

1.46

3,117,172

37,354,222

0.96

1,147,282

UG Mining

1.9

-

-

-

5,891,904

2.67

505,871

7,168,869

2.91

669,750

1.7

-

-

-

5,224,787

2.47

414,153

7,378,504

2.51

595,956

1.5

-

-

-

5,506,861

2.26

399,356

9,038,871

2.29

665,629

1.3

-

-

-

5,302,381

2.10

357,603

11,459,118

2.05

756,440

Tailings

0.6

19,000

2.10

1,284

4,104,400

0.93

123,189

-

-

-

0.5

19,400

2.07

1,290

4,104,800

0.93

123,196

-

-

-

0.45

19,600

2.06

1,295

4,105,000

0.93

123,200

-

-

-

0.4

19,900

2.03

1,297

4,105,200

0.93

123,203

-

-

-

0.35

20,000

2.02

1,299

4,105,400

0.93

123,206

-

-

-

InnovExplo Inc., the authors of the Technical Report, concluded that:

  • The database supporting the 2022 MRE is complete, valid and up to date.
  • Geological and gold-grade continuity has been demonstrated for all 72 mineralized zones.
  • The key parameters of the 2022 MRE (density, capping, compositing, interpolation, search ellipsoid, etc.) are supported by data and statistical and/or geostatistical analysis.
  • The 2022 MRE includes measured, indicated and inferred resources for a combination of two mining scenarios: open pit and selective underground. The 2022 MRE complies with CIM Definition Standards and CIM Guidelines.
  • Two cut-off grades of 0.40 and 1.50 g/t Au were used, corresponding to potential open pit and selective underground mining scenarios.
  • Cut-off grades were calculated at a gold price of US$1,650 per troy ounce and an exchange rate of 1.31 USD/CAD, using reasonable mining, processing and G&A costs.
  • In a combined pit and selective underground mining scenario, the Project contains an estimated M+I Resource of 65,081,200 t at 1.58 g/t Au for 3,316,100 oz of gold and an Inferred Resource of 37,371,900 t at 1.36 g/t Au for 1,636,000 oz of gold. The Project also contains the Beattie mine tailings with an estimated M+I Resource of 4,125,100 t at 0.94 g/t Au for 124,500 oz of gold.
  • The results of the 2022 MRE represent a 10.5% increase in the M+I Resource and a 13.4% increase in the Inferred Resource compared to the previous 2014 MRE of Poirier et al., 2014. The increase in the M+I Resource is due to a deeper optimized shell and the updated economic parameters. The same reasons combined with the addition of 55 drill holes explain the increase in Inferred resources.
  • Based on metallurgical tests, the Duparquet project appears amenable to standard gold recovery processes. A combination of flotation, pressure oxidation and cyanide leach processes has shown a gold recovery ranging from 94.7% to 96.5%.
  • Additional diamond drilling on multiple zones would likely upgrade some of the Inferred Resource to the Indicated category and/or add to the Inferred Resource since most of the mineralized zones have not been fully explored at depth or close to surface infrastructures.

Qualified Persons

The independent and qualified persons for the MRE, as defined by National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, are Marina Iund, P.Geo., Carl Pelletier, P.Geo., Simon Boudreau, P.Eng. from InnovExplo and Guy Comeau P.Eng. from Soutex. The effective date of the estimate is September 12, 2022.

Mr. Louis Martin P.Geo., (OGQ 0364), a consultant of First Mining, is a "Qualified Person" for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, and he has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical disclosure contained in this news release.

About First Mining Gold Corp. 

First Mining is a gold developer advancing two of the largest gold projects in Canada, the Springpole Gold Project in northwestern Ontario, where we have commenced a Feasibility Study and permitting activities are on-going with a draft Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for the project published in June 2022, and the Duparquet, Pitt and Duquesne Gold Projects in Quebec, a collection of advanced stage development assets located on the Destor-Porcupine Fault in the prolific Abitibi region.  First Mining also owns the Cameron project in Ontario and a portfolio of gold project interests including the Pickle Crow gold project (being advanced in partnership with Auteco Minerals Ltd.), the Hope Brook gold project (being advanced in partnership with Big Ridge Gold Corp.), an equity interest in Treasury Metals Inc., and a portfolio of 21 gold royalties.

First Mining was established in 2015 by Mr. Keith Neumeyer, founding President and CEO of First Majestic Silver Corp. 

ON BEHALF OF FIRST MINING GOLD CORP.

Daniel W. Wilton 
Chief Executive Officer and Director

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This news release includes certain "forward-looking information" and "forward-looking statements" (collectively "forward-looking statements") within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities legislation including the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release. Forward-looking statements are frequently, but not always, identified by words such as "expects", "anticipates", "believes", "plans", "projects", "intends", "estimates", "envisages", "potential", "possible", "strategy", "goals", "opportunities", "objectives", or variations thereof or stating that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions.

Forward-looking statements in this news release relate to future events or future performance and reflect current estimates, predictions, expectations or beliefs regarding future events.  All forward-looking statements are based on First Mining's or its consultants' current beliefs as well as various assumptions made by them and information currently available to them. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Forward-looking statements reflect the beliefs, opinions and projections on the date the statements are made and are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by the respective parties, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties and contingencies. Such factors include, without limitation the Company's business, operations and financial condition potentially being materially adversely affected by the outbreak of epidemics, pandemics or other health crises, such as COVID-19, and by reactions by government and private actors to such outbreaks; risks to employee health and safety as a result of the outbreak of epidemics, pandemics or other health crises, such as COVID-19, that may result in a slowdown or temporary suspension of operations at some or all of the Company's mineral properties as well as its head office; fluctuations in the spot and forward price of gold, silver, base metals or certain other commodities; fluctuations in the currency markets (such as the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar); changes in national and local government, legislation, taxation, controls, regulations and political or economic developments; risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining (including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected formations, pressures, cave-ins and flooding); the presence of laws and regulations that may impose restrictions on mining; employee relations; relationships with and claims by local communities, indigenous populations and other stakeholders; availability and increasing costs associated with mining inputs and labour; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development; title to properties.; and the additional risks described in the Company's Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2021 filed with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities under the Company's SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com, and in the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F filed with the SEC on EDGAR.

First Mining cautions that the foregoing list of factors that may affect future results is not exhaustive. When relying on our forward-looking statements to make decisions with respect to First Mining, investors and others should carefully consider the foregoing factors and other uncertainties and potential events. First Mining does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by the Company or on our behalf, except as required by law. 

Cautionary Note to United States Investors 

The Company is a "foreign private issuer" as defined in Rule 3b-4 under the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is eligible to rely upon the Canada-U.S. Multi-Jurisdictional Disclosure System, and is therefore permitted to prepare the technical information contained herein in accordance with the requirements of the securities laws in effect in Canada, which differ from the requirements of the securities laws currently in effect in the United States. Accordingly, information concerning mineral deposits set forth herein may not be comparable with information made public by companies that report in accordance with U.S. standards.

Technical disclosure contained in this news release has not been prepared in accordance with the requirements of United States securities laws and uses terms that comply with reporting standards in Canada with certain estimates prepared in accordance with NI 43-101.

NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators that establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning the issuer's material mineral projects.

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-mining-files-ni-43-101-technical-report-on-the-updated-mineral-resource-estimate-for-the-duparquet-gold-project-quebec-301643040.html

SOURCE First Mining Gold Corp.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former…

Published

on

Buried Project Veritas Recording Shows Top Pfizer Scientists Suppressed Concerns Over COVID-19 Boosters, MRNA Tech

Submitted by Liam Cosgrove

Former Project Veritas & O’Keefe Media Group operative and Pfizer formulation analyst scientist Justin Leslie revealed previously unpublished recordings showing Pfizer’s top vaccine researchers discussing major concerns surrounding COVID-19 vaccines. Leslie delivered these recordings to Veritas in late 2021, but they were never published:

Featured in Leslie’s footage is Kanwal Gill, a principal scientist at Pfizer. Gill was weary of MRNA technology given its long research history yet lack of approved commercial products. She called the vaccines “sneaky,” suggesting latent side effects could emerge in time.

Gill goes on to illustrate how the vaccine formulation process was dramatically rushed under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization and adds that profit incentives likely played a role:

"It’s going to affect my heart, and I’m going to die. And nobody’s talking about that."

Leslie recorded another colleague, Pfizer’s pharmaceutical formulation scientist Ramin Darvari, who raised the since-validated concern that repeat booster intake could damage the cardiovascular system:

None of these claims will be shocking to hear in 2024, but it is telling that high-level Pfizer researchers were discussing these topics in private while the company assured the public of “no serious safety concerns” upon the jab’s release:

Vaccine for Children is a Different Formulation

Leslie sent me a little-known FDA-Pfizer conference — a 7-hour Zoom meeting published in tandem with the approval of the vaccine for 5 – 11 year-olds — during which Pfizer’s vice presidents of vaccine research and development, Nicholas Warne and William Gruber, discussed a last-minute change to the vaccine’s “buffer” — from “PBS” to “Tris” — to improve its shelf life. For about 30 seconds of these 7 hours, Gruber acknowledged that the new formula was NOT the one used in clinical trials (emphasis mine):


“The studies were done using the same volume… but contained the PBS buffer. We obviously had extensive consultations with the FDA and it was determined that the clinical studies were not required because, again, the LNP and the MRNA are the same and the behavior — in terms of reactogenicity and efficacy — are expected to be the same.

According to Leslie, the tweaked “buffer” dramatically changed the temperature needed for storage: “Before they changed this last step of the formulation, the formula was to be kept at -80 degrees Celsius. After they changed the last step, we kept them at 2 to 8 degrees celsius,” Leslie told me.

The claims are backed up in the referenced video presentation:

I’m no vaccinologist but an 80-degree temperature delta — and a 5x shelf-life in a warmer climate — seems like a significant change that might warrant clinical trials before commercial release.

Despite this information technically being public, there has been virtually no media scrutiny or even coverage — and in fact, most were told the vaccine for children was the same formula but just a smaller dose — which is perhaps due to a combination of the information being buried within a 7-hour jargon-filled presentation and our media being totally dysfunctional.

Bohemian Grove?

Leslie’s 2-hour long documentary on his experience at both Pfizer and O’Keefe’s companies concludes on an interesting note: James O’Keefe attended an outing at the Bohemian Grove.

Leslie offers this photo of James’ Bohemian Grove “GATE” slip as evidence, left on his work desk atop a copy of his book, “American Muckraker”:

My thoughts on the Bohemian Grove: my good friend’s dad was its general manager for several decades. From what I have gathered through that connection, the Bohemian Grove is not some version of the Illuminati, at least not in the institutional sense.

Do powerful elites hangout there? Absolutely. Do they discuss their plans for the world while hanging out there? I’m sure it has happened. Do they have a weird ritual with a giant owl? Yep, Alex Jones showed that to the world.

My perspective is based on conversations with my friend and my belief that his father is not lying to him. I could be wrong and am open to evidence — like if boxer Ryan Garcia decides to produce evidence regarding his rape claims — and I do find it a bit strange the club would invite O’Keefe who is notorious for covertly filming, but Occam’s razor would lead me to believe the club is — as it was under my friend’s dad — run by boomer conservatives the extent of whose politics include disliking wokeness, immigration, and Biden (common subjects of O’Keefe’s work).

Therefore, I don’t find O’Keefe’s visit to the club indicative that he is some sort of Operation Mockingbird asset as Leslie tries to depict (however Mockingbird is a 100% legitimate conspiracy). I have also met James several times and even came close to joining OMG. While I disagreed with James on the significance of many of his stories — finding some to be overhyped and showy — I never doubted his conviction in them.

As for why Leslie’s story was squashed… all my sources told me it was to avoid jail time for Veritas executives.

Feel free to watch Leslie’s full documentary here and decide for yourself.

Fun fact — Justin Leslie was also the operative behind this mega-viral Project Veritas story where Pfizer’s director of R&D claimed the company was privately mutating COVID-19 behind closed doors:

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/12/2024 - 13:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Association of prenatal vitamins and metals with epigenetic aging at birth and in childhood

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging…

Published

on

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

Credit: 2024 Bozack et al.

“[…] our findings support the hypothesis that the intrauterine environment, particularly essential and non-essential metals, affect epigenetic aging biomarkers across the life course.”

BUFFALO, NY- March 12, 2024 – A new research paper was published in Aging (listed by MEDLINE/PubMed as “Aging (Albany NY)” and “Aging-US” by Web of Science) Volume 16, Issue 4, entitled, “Associations of prenatal one-carbon metabolism nutrients and metals with epigenetic aging biomarkers at birth and in childhood in a US cohort.”

Epigenetic gestational age acceleration (EGAA) at birth and epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) in childhood may be biomarkers of the intrauterine environment. In this new study, researchers Anne K. Bozack, Sheryl L. Rifas-Shiman, Andrea A. Baccarelli, Robert O. Wright, Diane R. Gold, Emily Oken, Marie-France Hivert, and Andres Cardenas from Stanford University School of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai investigated the extent to which first-trimester folate, B12, 5 essential and 7 non-essential metals in maternal circulation are associated with EGAA and EAA in early life. 

“[…] we hypothesized that OCM [one-carbon metabolism] nutrients and essential metals would be positively associated with EGAA and non-essential metals would be negatively associated with EGAA. We also investigated nonlinear associations and associations with mixtures of micronutrients and metals.”

Bohlin EGAA and Horvath pan-tissue and skin and blood EAA were calculated using DNA methylation measured in cord blood (N=351) and mid-childhood blood (N=326; median age = 7.7 years) in the Project Viva pre-birth cohort. A one standard deviation increase in individual essential metals (copper, manganese, and zinc) was associated with 0.94-1.2 weeks lower Horvath EAA at birth, and patterns of exposures identified by exploratory factor analysis suggested that a common source of essential metals was associated with Horvath EAA. The researchers also observed evidence of nonlinear associations of zinc with Bohlin EGAA, magnesium and lead with Horvath EAA, and cesium with skin and blood EAA at birth. Overall, associations at birth did not persist in mid-childhood; however, arsenic was associated with greater EAA at birth and in childhood. 

“Prenatal metals, including essential metals and arsenic, are associated with epigenetic aging in early life, which might be associated with future health.”

 

Read the full paper: DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.205602 

Corresponding Author: Andres Cardenas

Corresponding Email: andres.cardenas@stanford.edu 

Keywords: epigenetic age acceleration, metals, folate, B12, prenatal exposures

Click here to sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article.

 

About Aging:

Launched in 2009, Aging publishes papers of general interest and biological significance in all fields of aging research and age-related diseases, including cancer—and now, with a special focus on COVID-19 vulnerability as an age-dependent syndrome. Topics in Aging go beyond traditional gerontology, including, but not limited to, cellular and molecular biology, human age-related diseases, pathology in model organisms, signal transduction pathways (e.g., p53, sirtuins, and PI-3K/AKT/mTOR, among others), and approaches to modulating these signaling pathways.

Please visit our website at www.Aging-US.com​​ and connect with us:

  • Facebook
  • X, formerly Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Spotify, and available wherever you listen to podcasts

 

Click here to subscribe to Aging publication updates.

For media inquiries, please contact media@impactjournals.com.

 

Aging (Aging-US) Journal Office

6666 E. Quaker Str., Suite 1B

Orchard Park, NY 14127

Phone: 1-800-922-0957, option 1

###


Read More

Continue Reading

International

A beginner’s guide to the taxes you’ll hear about this election season

Everything you need to know about income tax, national insurance and more.

Cast Of Thousands/Shutterstock

National insurance, income tax, VAT, capital gains tax, inheritance tax… it’s easy to get confused about the many different ways we contribute to the cost of running the country. The budget announcement is the key time each year when the government shares its financial plans with us all, and announces changes that may make a tangible difference to what you pay.

But you’ll likely be hearing a lot more about taxes in the coming months – promises to cut or raise them are an easy win (or lose) for politicians in an election year. We may even get at least one “mini-budget”.

If you’ve recently entered the workforce or the housing market, you may still be wrapping your mind around all of these terms. Here is what you need to know about the different types of taxes and how they affect you.

The UK broadly uses three ways to collect tax:

1. When you earn money

If you are an employee or own a business, taxes are deducted from your salary or profits you make. For most people, this happens in two ways: income tax, and national insurance contributions (or NICs).

If you are self-employed, you will have to pay your taxes via an annual tax return assessment. You might also have to pay taxes this way for interest you earn on savings, dividends (distribution of profits from a company or shares you own) received and most other forms of income not taxed before you get it.

Around two-thirds of taxes collected come from people’s or business’ incomes in the UK.

2. When you spend money

VAT and excise duties are taxes on most goods and services you buy, with some exceptions like books and children’s clothing. About 20% of the total tax collected is VAT.

3. Taxes on wealth and assets

These are mainly taxes on the money you earn if you sell assets (like property or stocks) for more than you bought them for, or when you pass on assets in an inheritance. In the latter case in the UK, the recipient doesn’t pay this, it is the estate paying it out that must cover this if due. These taxes contribute only about 3% to the total tax collected.

You also likely have to pay council tax, which is set by the council you live in based on the value of your house or flat. It is paid by the user of the property, no matter if you own or rent. If you are a full-time student or on some apprenticeship schemes, you may get a deduction or not have to pay council tax at all.


Quarter life, a series by The Conversation

This article is part of Quarter Life, a series about issues affecting those of us in our 20s and 30s. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.

You may be interested in:

If you get your financial advice on social media, watch out for misinformation

Future graduates will pay more in student loan repayments – and the poorest will be worst affected

Selling on Vinted, Etsy or eBay? Here’s what you need to know about paying tax


Put together, these totalled almost £790 billion in 2022-23, which the government spends on public services such as the NHS, schools and social care. The government collects taxes from all sources and sets its spending plans accordingly, borrowing to make up any difference between the two.

Income tax

The amount of income tax you pay is determined by where your income sits in a series of “bands” set by the government. Almost everyone is entitled to a “personal allowance”, currently £12,570, which you can earn without needing to pay any income tax.

You then pay 20% in tax on each pound of income you earn (across all sources) from £12,570-£50,270. You pay 40% on each extra pound up to £125,140 and 45% over this. If you earn more than £100,000, the personal allowance (amount of untaxed income) starts to decrease.

If you are self-employed, the same rates apply to you. You just don’t have an employer to take this off your salary each month. Instead, you have to make sure you have enough money at the end of the year to pay this directly to the government.


Read more: Taxes aren't just about money – they shape how we think about each other


The government can increase the threshold limits to adjust for inflation. This tries to ensure any wage rise you get in response to higher prices doesn’t lead to you having to pay a higher tax rate. However, the government announced in 2021 that they would freeze these thresholds until 2026 (extended now to 2028), arguing that it would help repay the costs of the pandemic.

Given wages are now rising for many to help with the cost of living crisis, this means many people will pay more income tax this coming year than they did before. This is sometimes referred to as “fiscal drag” – where lower earners are “dragged” into paying higher tax rates, or being taxed on more of their income.

National insurance

National insurance contributions (NICs) are a second “tax” you pay on your income – or to be precise, on your earned income (your salary). You don’t pay this on some forms of income, including savings or dividends, and you also don’t pay it once you reach state retirement age (currently 66).

While Jeremy Hunt, the current chancellor of the exchequer, didn’t adjust income tax meaningfully in this year’s budget, he did announce a cut to NICs. This was a surprise to many, as we had already seen rates fall from 12% to 10% on incomes higher than £242/week in January. It will now fall again to 8% from April.


Read more: Budget 2024: experts explain what it means for taxpayers, businesses, borrowers and the NHS


While this is charged separately to income tax, in reality it all just goes into one pot with other taxes. Some, including the chancellor, say it is time to merge these two deductions and make this simpler for everyone. In his budget speech this year, Hunt said he’d like to see this tax go entirely. He thinks this isn’t fair on those who have to pay it, as it is only charged on some forms of income and on some workers.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for this to happen however, and even if it did, there are huge sums linked to NICs (nearly £180bn last year) so it would almost certainly have to be collected from elsewhere (such as via an increase in income taxes, or a lot more borrowing) to make sure the government could still balance its books.

A young black man sits at a home office desk with his feet up, looking at a mobile phone
Do you know how much tax you pay? Alex from the Rock/Shutterstock

Other taxes

There are likely to be further tweaks to the UK’s tax system soon, perhaps by the current government before the election – and almost certainly if there is a change of government.

Wealth taxes may be in line for a change. In the budget, the chancellor reduced capital gains taxes on sales of assets such as second properties (from 28% to 24%). These types of taxes provide only a limited amount of money to the government, as quite high thresholds apply for inheritance tax (up to £1 million if you are passing on a family home).

There are calls from many quarters though to look again at these types of taxes. Wealth inequality (the differences between total wealth held by the richest compared to the poorest) in the UK is very high (much higher than income inequality) and rising.

But how to do this effectively is a matter of much debate. A recent study suggested a one-off tax on total wealth held over a certain threshold might work. But wealth taxes are challenging to make work in practice, and both main political parties have already said this isn’t an option they are considering currently.

Andy Lymer and his colleagues at the Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing at Aston University currently or have recently received funding for their research work from a variety of funding bodies including the UK's Money and Pension Service, the Aviva Foundation, Fair4All Finance, NEST Insight, the Gambling Commission, Vivid Housing and the ESRC, amongst others.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending