# Georgie boy is after your pension money!



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

For those who don't know the history of pensions, final salary pensions were perfectly affordable until Gordon Brown stopped pension fund managers from claiming back the tax paid on dividend income. Now George Osborne (Gordon Brown Mark II?) wants to restrict or stop the tax relief you get on your personal payments into your pension fund. This probably means for many people, once you have paid the management fees, etc, that your pension pot will be worth less than you paid into it.  Also he want's pension pots to be restricted to Â£750,000, which sounds a lot, but probably won't give you that much of an income in retirement at today's annuity rates.  Even when we did have final salary pensions, retirement generally meant a significant reduction in income, and this can only get worse in future. Possibly, even with workplace pensions, many people will never be able to afford to retire!

How does this affect golf?  Well about 50% of my club's members are retired on reasonably comfortable pensions, and can afford golf club membership as well as eating and other normal living costs. However, if finances are that tight, then golf club membership becomes a luxury that you can't afford!

Principle of pensions:  You and your employer pay a small percentage of your salary into a pension fund to fund your future retirement. With compound interest and sensible investment, you should be able to build up a reasonable sum of money. Then you are either paid an agreed pension based on years of service, or use the accumulated sum of money to buy an annuity. Now, if you wish, you can withdraw the entire sum and blow it on a Rolls Royce, or whatever, and make do without a pension, but you will pay tax at 40% on part of this lump sum. Traditionally, Governments have encouraged people to be prudent and save for their retirement by giving tax incentives, but this principle now seems to have been put aside by various Chancellors of the Exchequer who are after your money for their nefarious schemes! 

P.S. What is proposed is a form of double taxation. You payments into a pension will come out of your taxed income, and you will also (probably) pay income tax on your pension when you get it!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 26, 2016)

Could you let me know approximately which number post in this thread it will be before the debate descends into blaming the immigrants abusing the NHS and/or feckless layabouts abusing the overly generous welfare system, meaning we need more money from the pension schemes to pay for them?


----------



## chrisd (Jan 26, 2016)

At the moment my pension provider (?) won't let me have any of my 25% tax free money! The financial sector are just arses


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Could you let me know approximately which number thread it will be before the debate descends into blaming the immigrants abusing the NHS, meaning we need more money from the pension schemes to pay for them?
		
Click to expand...

I think that George Osborne is raiding our pension funds in an attempt to pay off our National Debt. Same as Gordon Brown trying to pay for his Socialist Agenda, and the previous Conservative Government allowing companies to take 'pension holidays' so that they made more profit and paid more Corporation Tax. Governments seem to be no better than the late Robert Maxwell when it comes to raiding pension funds. Personally I believe that pension funds should be made immune from political interference and overseen by some sort of independent trustee body.

 This has nothing to do with immigrants!


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

chrisd said:



			At the moment my pension provider (?) won't let me have any of my 25% tax free money! The financial sector are just arses
		
Click to expand...

The financial sector has also been guilty of raiding pension funds by the ridiculously high management fees they charge for not doing very much at all.  I believe that somebody once, as an experiment,  allowed a group of Chimpanzees to select which investments to go for (more or less at random), and they actually did better than the pension fund managers!  :mmm:


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			The financial sector has also been guilty of raiding pension funds by the ridiculously high management fees they charge for not doing very much at all.  I believe that somebody once, as an experiment,  allowed a group of Chimpanzees to select which investments to go for (more or less at random), and they actually did better than the pension fund managers!  :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

Well the chimpanzee story is a complete myth although it is true that passive fund management (i.e. tracker funds) have, in many cases, outperformed actively managed funds.

Management charges have for several years now been capped and regulated.

Oh! and Final Salary schemes were fast becoming unaffordable due to improved mortality rates and falling yields before Gordon Brown's ACT changes.

But then you have never previously allowed the facts to get in the way of a good old-fashioned prejudice and pre-conception.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 26, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Could you let me know approximately which number post in this thread it will be before the debate descends into blaming the immigrants abusing the NHS and/or feckless layabouts abusing the overly generous welfare system, meaning we need more money from the pension schemes to pay for them?

Click to expand...

 You forgot SNP BAD


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Well the chimpanzee story is a complete myth although it is true that passive fund management (i.e. tracker funds) have, in many cases, outperformed actively managed funds.

Management charges have for several years now been capped and regulated.

Oh! and Final Salary schemes were fast becoming unaffordable due to improved mortality rates and falling yields before Gordon Brown's ACT changes.

But then you have never previously allowed the facts to get in the way of a good old-fashioned prejudice and pre-conception.
		
Click to expand...

In the 1990's, many pension funds were (allegedly) greatly in surplus. That is they had more than enough money to meet their commitments. In order to reduce these supposed surpluses, the then Conservative Government allowed companies, although not their employees, to take 'pension holidays', which meant that they made more profit and paid more in Corporation Tax. I believe that the company I worked for payed nothing into our pension fund for something like 10 years! In essence, without political interference and changes to taxation, final salary pensions were easily affordable, even if people are living longer. By the way, as a member of a final salary pension scheme and a Union rep, I always took a keen interest in pension matters, and I was also married to a Pensions Administrator, so I do know what I am talking about!


----------



## evahakool (Jan 26, 2016)

I kind of like the idea of restricting tax relief on payments into a personal pension,it seams to me the more money you have the more you can put away in a pension,and getting money off the government that could be better spent elsewhere.

I like a idea of a sliding scale where it could stay the same as is for the average wage earners, but someone in the 100k range shouldn't get any relief, it's just wrong that someone can put 20/30k into a pension fund and get so much tax relief.

I personally wouldn't want any more than Â£750,000 in a pension fund, to many variables nowdays and much better options for your money.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 26, 2016)

Cheers Delc, I wanted a quiet night in, chilled out in front of telly and you write this.

If you think that Delc is talking out of his jacksy, try to find out what successive governments have done to the Miners pension scheme aka MPS. They have taken billions out of the fund, and I mean billions. 
When the mining industry went privatised, the government ( Tory ) promised to pay any shortfall that may occur if the value of the fund could not meet payments. For that they wanted 50% of All profits every year. The Unions jumped at the chance. Why, because the Government had promised it did not have an agenda to close all the pits in the UK and that every miner will work til they are 59 and drop dead five years later on a full pension. It was a no brainer.
Guess what, there now no pits left. Miners are taking reduced pensions early, and the government are making Billions. Last year 2,500 miners died, that's less to pay out and more surplus for Captain bloodsucker. That short ass, pig poking Osborne is telling everyone how important pensions are but picking your pocket at the same time.
Thing is about us old uns is that there is an average age of when we die, miners are well under that average and there quality of retirement is being robbed

If he can rob us, then no one is safe . Cheers Delc, rant over.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			In the 1990's, many pension funds were (allegedly) greatly in surplus. That is they had more than enough money to meet their commitments. In order to reduce these supposed surpluses, the then Conservative Government allowed companies, although not their employees, to take 'pension holidays', which meant that they made more profit and paid more in Corporation Tax. I believe that the company I worked for payed nothing into our pension fund for something like 10 years! In essence, without political interference and changes to taxation, final salary pensions were easily affordable, even if people are living longer. By the way, as a member of a final salary pension scheme and a Union rep, I always took a keen interest in pension matters, and I was also married to a Pensions Administrator, so I do know what I am talking about!
		
Click to expand...

Well I would suggest that you are not as well informed as you like to think.

You have overlooked the changes to revaluation of benefits and improved provision for scheme leavers, the fall in gilt yields with the resultant increase in the cost of providing the actual pension and several other changes in pension and social security legislation.

Life expectancy for a 65 year old male increased by 40% from 1980 to 2014. Have you any idea what effect that increase has had onfunding rates.

I agree employers' contribution holidays were often not a good idea. However, to suggest that FS schemes would still be affordable in the private sector is to ignore the facts and I am sure you are never guilty of that


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 26, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Cheers Delc, I wanted a quiet night in, chilled out in front of telly and you write this.

If you think that Delc is talking out of his jacksy, try to find out what successive governments have done to the Miners pension scheme aka MPS. They have taken billions out of the fund, and I mean billions. 
When the mining industry went privatised, the government ( Tory ) promised to pay any shortfall that may occur if the value of the fund could not meet payments. For that they wanted 50% of All profits every year. The Unions jumped at the chance. Why, because the Government had promised it did not have an agenda to close all the pits in the UK and that every miner will work til they are 59 and drop dead five years later on a full pension. It was a no brainer.
Guess what, there now no pits left. Miners are taking reduced pensions early, and the government are making Billions. Last year 2,500 miners died, that's less to pay out and more surplus for Captain bloodsucker. That short ass, pig poking Osborne is telling everyone how important pensions are but picking your pocket at the same time.
Thing is about us old uns is that there is an average age of when we die, miners are well under that average and there quality of retirement is being robbed

If he can rob us, then no one is safe . Cheers Delc, rant over.
		
Click to expand...

That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Well I would suggest that you are not as well informed as you like to think.

You have overlooked the changes to revaluation of benefits and improved provision for scheme leavers, the fall in gilt yields with the resultant increase in the cost of providing the actual pension and several other changes in pension and social security legislation.

Life expectancy for a 65 year old male increased by 40% from 1980 to 2014. Have you any idea what effect that increase has had onfunding rates.

I agree employers' contribution holidays were often not a good idea. However, to suggest that FS schemes would still be affordable in the private sector is to ignore the facts and I am sure you are never guilty of that
		
Click to expand...

In the scheme I was in, we the employees paid 6% of our salary into the pension scheme, tax deductible, but the employers were supposed to pay something like 15%. Do you agree that not paying that for 10 years represented an awful lot of money? Could you define exactly what living 40% longer means? I assume you mean after the age of 60 or 65?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.
		
Click to expand...

Actually the biggest error is to overlook the fact that the raid on the profits generated by the MPS equity investments was largely undertaken by the Blair/Brown governments.

This is coupled with the Scheme's continued reliance upon equities at a stage when a comparable private sector scheme would have been required to invest in bonds.

Also it should be realised that since 1994 the Scheme's liabilities have been underwritten by the taxpayer.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			In the scheme I was in, we the employees paid 6% of our salary into the pension scheme, tax deductible, but the employers were supposed to pay something like 15%. Do you agree that not paying that for 10 years represented an awful lot of money? Could you define exactly what living 40% longer means? I assume you mean after the age of 60 or 65?
		
Click to expand...

As I said contribution holidays were often not a good idea but then not all schemes enjoyed one.

In any event it still does not alter the fact that the liabilities upon schemes have increased to such an extent that they have become unaffordable.

The increase in life expectancy to which I referred is post 65, ergo pensions become payable for 40% longer.


----------



## PIng (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			P.S. What is proposed is a form of double taxation. You payments into a pension will come out of your taxed income, and you will also (probably) pay income tax on your pension when you get it!
		
Click to expand...

In every job I've ever had, including being self-employed, the pension has been taken out *before* tax, therefore there is no double taxation.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 26, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.
		
Click to expand...

Nah there all at it, anyway why let the truth get in the way of a good story&#128513;


----------



## Green Bay Hacker (Jan 26, 2016)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95zxtaKQBBc


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 26, 2016)

PIng said:



			In every job I've ever had, including being self-employed, the pension has been taken out *before* tax, therefore there is no double taxation.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. A pre-tax deduction


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

PIng said:



			In every job I've ever had, including being self-employed, the pension has been taken out *before* tax, therefore there is no double taxation.
		
Click to expand...

Up to now that has been true, at least in respect of employee contributions, but Georgie boy is trying to restrict this for higher rate tax payers, and maybe for everyone in the long run! 

Pension funds are becoming like Ponzi schemes, where you are expected to pay in, but may get little or nothing back. You will probably be better off putting money under the mattress!


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Actually the biggest error is to overlook the fact that the raid on the profits generated by the MPS equity investments was largely undertaken by the Blair/Brown governments.

This is coupled with the Scheme's continued reliance upon equities at a stage when a comparable private sector scheme would have been required to invest in bonds.

Also it should be realised that since 1994 the Scheme's liabilities have been underwritten by the taxpayer.
		
Click to expand...

Mr Blair and Brown have raided a lot from the pot but it was set up by missis T, John Major and gang. And yes you are more than correct that it was underwritten by the tax payer. However this is the bit that upsets me and 200,000 others. If they had not taken Billions out of the fund then there would be no liabilities for Joe public because it would be worth billions more than the 11billionish it is currently valued at. for the record. I believe the taxpayer paid 40 million about five years ago ( I do stand corrected on date and figure) when there was a shortfall. However if they had not taken billions there would of been no shortfall.
I have often hoped that I am the last miner in The UK dragging out of the MPS, I would be on about Â£500,000 per week. What will happen to the fund when the last miner dies. Ave a feeling Georgie boy has already give that some thought.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

In any event to refer to the OP the change that is being considered is to restrict tax-relief to standard rate i.e. 20% so it is Higher Rate Tax-payers that will be affected rather than all who contribute towards their pension.


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			In any event to refer to the OP the change that is being considered is to restrict tax-relief to standard rate i.e. 20% so it is Higher Rate Tax-payers that will be affected rather than all who contribute towards their pension.
		
Click to expand...

But assuming that you have a range of income groups paying into a pension fund, the higher income groups contribute more (although they admittedly get more back). If they decide that it's not worthwhile to contribute, the whole pension fund will suffer.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			But assuming that you have a range of income groups paying into a pension fund, the higher income groups contribute more (although they admittedly get more back). If they decide that it's not worthwhile to contribute, the whole pension fund will suffer.
		
Click to expand...

If it is a Final Salary scheme the higher rate tax paying employees would be ill advised not to join as they would lose the benefit of the far greater employer contributions but then they are unlikely to be offered membership these days.

If it is a Money Purchase scheme then their not joining would have zero effect upon other employees.


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			If it is a Final Salary scheme the higher rate tax paying employees would be ill advised not to join as they would lose the benefit of the far greater employer contributions but then they are unlikely to be offered membership these days.

If it is a Money Purchase scheme then their not joining would have zero effect upon other employees.
		
Click to expand...

One of the problems I see is that you are being offered a pig in a poke. Unlike the final salary schemes, you have no guarantee about what you will get back, and how it will meet your income needs in retirement. The one company that did offer guarantees, Equitable Life, got into trouble after Gordon Brown changed the tax regime and effectively went bankrupt. Unfortunately I had an AVC with them, and although I am getting a tiny income from them, it's a fraction of what I was expecting!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			One of the problems I see is that you are being offered a pig in a poke. Unlike the final salary schemes, you have no guarantee about what you will get back, and how it will meet your income needs in retirement. The one company that did offer guarantees, Equitable Life, got into trouble after Gordon Brown changed the tax regime and effectively went bankrupt. Unfortunately I had an AVC with them, and although I am getting a tiny income from them, it's a fraction of what I was expecting!  

Click to expand...

Blimey you really don't like Gordon Brown do you.

To blame him for the failure of Equitable Life is a new one. Their problems arose from not being able to meet the costs of guaranteed annuity rates. Many other life assurance companies had offered similar guarantees but ceased taking new business on that basis as well as being better resourced for meeting their liabilities.

As for Money Purchase v Final Salary you are correct that there is less certainty with the former but then the latter never offered a guarantee, only a promise.

The vast majority of employees in the private sector never had the luxury of a Final Salary scheme in any event.


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Blimey you really don't like Gordon Brown do you.

To blame him for the failure of Equitable Life is a new one. Their problems arose from not being able to meet the costs of guaranteed annuity rates. Many other life assurance companies had offered similar guarantees but ceased taking new business on that basis as well as being better resourced for meeting their liabilities.

As for Money Purchase v Final Salary you are correct that there is less certainty with the former but then the latter never offered a guarantee, only a promise.

The vast majority of employees in the private sector never had the luxury of a Final Salary scheme in any event.
		
Click to expand...

There was a time when every decent company offered a final salary pension scheme! The only time I wasn't in one was when I was temping for an Agency. Even that added to my SERPS pension, which is also being done away with by George Osborne!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 26, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Could you let me know approximately which number post in this thread it will be before the debate descends into blaming the immigrants abusing the NHS and/or feckless layabouts abusing the overly generous welfare system, meaning we need more money from the pension schemes to pay for them?

Click to expand...

Actually I'd just like someone to direct me to where in the Tory Party 2015 GE manifesto this great idea was mentioned; and that for scrapping student grants; and that for scrapping free tuition fees to student nurses and midwives.  I suppose these great ideas are just to balance the scales with those promises in the manifesto that the government is failing to deliver.  Ach well.  Looking forward to another 15yrs of them and will also be looking forward to hearing my MP Jeremy Hunt (yes him) explain this great pension wheeze to his very responsible hard-working and striving pension-building constituents of West Surrey.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			There was a time when every decent company offered a final salary pension scheme! The only time I wasn't in one was when I was temping for an Agency. Even that added to my SERPS pension, which is also being done away with by George Osborne!  

Click to expand...

No there was not. 

Small companies have rarely been able to do so and of those that did many subsequently found the increased costs were at least partially responsible for their collapse.

You seem to be like many who worked for large(r) companies and in the public sector in having little understanding of the situation of the majority of the work-force who are employed by small(er) companies.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 26, 2016)

evahakool said:



			I kind of like the idea of restricting tax relief on payments into a personal pension,it seams to me the more money you have the more you can put away in a pension,and getting money off the government that could be better spent elsewhere.

I like a idea of a sliding scale where it could stay the same as is for the average wage earners, but someone in the 100k range shouldn't get any relief, it's just wrong that someone can put 20/30k into a pension fund and get so much tax relief.

*I personally wouldn't want any more than Â£750,000 in a pension fund,* to many variables nowdays and much better options for your money.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I most certainly would as it would mean I earned one heck of a lot more than I currently do - Â£750,000 is a HUGE pension pot.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Actually I'd just like someone to direct me to where in the Tory Party 2015 GE manifesto this great idea was mentioned; and that for scrapping student grants; and that for scrapping free tuition fees to student nurses and midwives.  I suppose these great ideas are just to balance the scales with those promises in the manifesto that the government is failing to deliver.  Ach well.  Looking forward to another 15yrs of them and will also be looking forward to hearing my MP Jeremy Hunt (yes him) explain this great pension wheeze to his very responsible hard-working and striving pension-building constituents of West Surrey.
		
Click to expand...

This proposal was originally suggested by, amongst others, Vince Cable during the coalition. Certainly not a new idea.

In any event I would have thought that you of all people would be in favour of "flat rate" relief for all.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 26, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.
		
Click to expand...

Both Georgie Boy and Call me Dave are guilty of major pig-in-a-pokery.  A pair of shysters.


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			No there was not. 

Small companies have rarely been able to do so and of those that did many subsequently found the increased costs were at least partially responsible for their collapse.

You seem to be like many who worked for large(r) companies and in the public sector in having little understanding of the situation of the majority of the work-force who are employed by small(er) companies.
		
Click to expand...

So what do you want to happen to people when they get too old to work? Send them to a Victorian Workhouse, euthanasia, begging on the streets? Seem like good Tory ideals to me!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			This proposal was originally suggested by, amongst others, Vince Cable during the coalition. Certainly not a new idea.
		
Click to expand...

i must go read the Tory manifesto then as I never heard much talk of it during the GE campaign.


----------



## richart (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			One of the problems I see is that you are being offered a pig in a poke. Unlike the final salary schemes, you have no guarantee about what you will get back, and how it will meet your income needs in retirement. The one company that did offer guarantees, Equitable Life, got into trouble after Gordon Brown changed the tax regime and effectively went bankrupt. Unfortunately I had an AVC with them, and although I am getting a tiny income from them, it's a fraction of what I was expecting!  

Click to expand...

 Equitable life were certainly not the only company that offered guaranteed annuities. Most companies stoped them in the early to mid 80's, though the likes of Scottish equitable offered them right up to the introduction of the new Personal Pensions in 1988. Before Personal Pensions we had Retirement Annuity Plans .

I had a lot of clients with Guaranteed Annuity rates attached to their R.A Plans, and they are all paying out nicely. Investors that went to Equitable Life, which was a direct sales company, were the ones that suffered. They were offering ridiculous rates to attract business. A good rule of investing, if it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. I doubt many Independent Financial Advisors recommend Equitable Life to their clients.

Equitable Life brought about their own downfall.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			So what do you want to happen to people when they get too old to work? Send them to a Victorian Workhouse, euthanasia, begging on the streets? Seem like good Tory ideals to me!
		
Click to expand...

Where on Earth have I suggested that? 

All I have stated is that Final Salary schemes had become unaffordable and it is for all of us, employees, employers and the State to ensure that adequate affordable provision is made for retirement which is likely to be longer for us all compared with previous generations.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			i must go read the Tory manifesto then as I never heard much talk of it during the GE campaign.
		
Click to expand...

Which government in history has ever included every possible and relatively modest change to Income Tax legislation in their pre-election manifesto.

I havelived through many governments and cannot recall one but perhaps you can enlighten me.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 26, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Which government in history has ever included every possible and relatively modest change to Income Tax legislation in their pre-election manifesto.

I havelived through many governments and cannot recall one but perhaps you can enlighten me.
		
Click to expand...

Quite - but they haven't hung about very long so must have had it planned on the back of their fag packet - just didn't want to tell us.  But on the other hand they use the fact that something may have been in the manifesto as justification why they *must* implement it despite protestations that suggest it might be foolish or detrimental (see Tax Credits).


----------



## evahakool (Jan 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Oh I most certainly would as it would mean I earned one heck of a lot more than I currently do - Â£750,000 is a HUGE pension pot.
		
Click to expand...


Â£750,000 is a huge pension pot, thats why IMO the tax relief system is unfair, if you are a top earner you could amass this amount with the government putting a lot in,,but before I got to that stage my money would be invested elsewhere.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Quite - but they haven't hung about very long so must have had it planned on the back of their fag packet - just didn't want to tell us.  But on the other hand they use the fact that something may have been in the manifesto as justification why they *must* implement it despite protestations that suggest it might be foolish or detrimental (see Tax Credits).
		
Click to expand...

And your point is?

Oh! I forgot you never make a point, merely criticise the Government at every opportunity whilst never offering any practical solutions to the problem.


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

evahakool said:



			Â£750,000 is a huge pension pot, thats why IMO the tax relief system is unfair, if you are a top earner you could amass this amount with the government putting a lot in,,but before I got to that stage my money would be invested elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

Â£750,000 might bring you in an income of Â£37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support.  Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!


----------



## evahakool (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			Â£750,000 might bring you in an income of Â£37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support.  Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!
		
Click to expand...

If any high earning people have that amount in a pension fund I would think they would have other money invested elsewhere , it's still unfair these people get so much tax relief.


They also should be mortgage free at this stage and if they still have children to support at this stage they must have a lot of lead in their pencil.:thup:


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 26, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Quite - but they haven't hung about very long so must have had it planned on the back of their fag packet - just didn't want to tell us.  But on the other hand they use the fact that something may have been in the manifesto as justification why they *must* implement it despite protestations that suggest it might be foolish or detrimental (see Tax Credits).
		
Click to expand...

They never mentioned in their Manifesto taking in any Syrian Refugees.   Does that mean they shouldn't take any?
They never mentioned Bombing in Syria.
They have to be able to react to circumstances whether it's in a Manifesto or not.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			Â£750,000 might bring you in an income of Â£37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support.  Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!
		
Click to expand...

Â£37,000 a year pension not a lot - what children will they have to support when they are retired ? Thats more than what most people earn as a living wage right now


----------



## delc (Jan 26, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Â£37,000 a year pension not a lot - what children will they have to support when they are retired ? Thats more than what most people earn as a living wage right now
		
Click to expand...

Depends on how old they where when they had children, and if the children go onto University they may need to be supported until at least their early twenties. And then there may also be grand children. The general idea is that people with high incomes when working and are used to a good standard of living need bigger pensions than the less well off.  Dragging everybody down to the same level of poverty in the interests of equality seems to be more of a Labour ideal than a Conservative one!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2016)

delc said:



			Depends on how old they where when they had children, and if the children go onto University, they may need to be supported until at least their early twenties. And then there may also be grand children. The general idea is that people with high incomes when working and are used to a good standard of living need bigger pensions than the less well off.  Dragging everybody down to the same level of poverty in the interests of equality seems to be more of a Labour ideal than a Conservative one! 

Click to expand...

Â£37,000 a year poverty ?! 

They dont "need" anything - they can make a choice but on Â£37,000 a year is more than enough income to support retired people.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			Depends on how old they where when they had children, and if the children go onto University they may need to be supported until at least their early twenties. And then there may also be grand children. The general idea is that people with high incomes when working and are used to a good standard of living need bigger pensions than the less well off.  Dragging everybody down to the same level of poverty in the interests of equality seems to be more of a Labour ideal than a Conservative one! 

Click to expand...

So it's ok for the government to hand out money towards high earning  pensions but not for people who need it?


----------



## evahakool (Jan 27, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Â£37,000 a year poverty ?! 

They dont "need" anything - they can make a choice but on Â£37,000 a year is more than enough income to support retired people.
		
Click to expand...

I can agree with some of the things Dels saying, I would not like to drop the standard of living I have at the moment when I retire, . But I agree it's not necessarily needed.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 27, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.
		
Click to expand...


I wouldn't put it beyond Georgie boy indulging in sloppy seconds...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			Â£750,000 might bring you in an income of Â£37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support.  Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!
		
Click to expand...


Isn't the idea that at 65 you are no longer supporting kids and you have paid for your house by then? So 37 grand seems quite a decent whack to live on in the real world.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Â£37,000 a year poverty ?! 

They dont "need" anything - they can make a choice but on Â£37,000 a year is more than enough income to support retired people.
		
Click to expand...

Depends on how expensive one's hobbies are!  One of the problems with being retired is that you have more time to persue your hobbies, but less money coming in to pay for them. You also have to heat your house for more hours a day, rather than sitting for 8 hours a day in a nice warm office provided by your employer!  

The sort of pension tax changes carried out by Gordon Brown and proposed by George Osborne are the ultimate 'Stealth Taxes', because they don't affect you immediately, but will have a big effect on your income in the future, probably well after they are out of office. They also increase tax revenue now, but will reduce it in the future because pensioners (a significant proportion of the population) will be paying less income tax on their smaller pensions!


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			No there was not. 

Small companies have rarely been able to do so and of those that did many subsequently found the increased costs were at least partially responsible for their collapse.

You seem to be like many who worked for large(r) companies and in the public sector in having little understanding of the situation of the majority of the work-force who are employed by small(er) companies.
		
Click to expand...

To cover for non contracted out employees working for small companies, there was the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS), but Georgie boy is scrapping that as well, in exchange for a modest increase in the Basic State Pension, which will just about keep you alive with no luxuries. 

I believe that when the State Pension was first introduced, it was set at 2/3rds of average salary. It is now only worth about 1/5th and you have to wait longer to get it!  The UK has one of the worse state pensions in Europe, which is why you need to do something to supplement it.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			Depends on how expensive one's hobbies are!  One of the problems with being retired is that you have more time to persue your hobbies, but less money coming in to pay for them. You also have to heat your house for more hours a day, rather than sitting for 8 hours a day in a nice warm office provided by your employer!  

The sort of pension tax changes carried out by Gordon Brown and proposed by George Osborne are the ultimate 'Stealth Taxes', because they don't affect you immediately, but will have a big effect on your income in the future, probably well after they are out of office. They also increase tax revenue now, but will reduce it in the future because pensioners (a significant proportion of the population) will be paying less income tax on their smaller pensions!  

Click to expand...

But why should they have smaller pensions?

Are you saying that Higher Rate taxpayers will only contribute to their schemes if they get relief at the higher level?

If so they are remarkably short-sighted and ill advised as they would still be investing in largely tax exempt funds and getting 20% relief on their payments.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			But why should they have smaller pensions?

Are you saying that Higher Rate taxpayers will only contribute to their schemes if they get relief at the higher level?

If so they are remarkably short-sighted and ill advised as they would still be investing in largely tax exempt funds and getting 20% relief on their payments.
		
Click to expand...

I note that the MP's themselves have a pretty gold plated pension scheme, while downgrading everybody else's!  Higher rate tax payers are either going to have to pay bigger contributions out of their taxed income into their pension funds to get the same return, or pay the same and accept a smaller pension. A lot of quite ordinary people are now higher rate taxpayers, because in real terms, the threshold has been allowed to reduce over the years. Many of these people, particularly those with mortgages, student loans to pay off, and children may find it difficult to pay anything into a pension scheme.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			I note that the MP's themselves have a pretty gold plated pension scheme, while downgrading everybody else's!  Higher rate tax payers are going to have to pay bigger contributions out of their taxed income into their pension funds to get the same return. A lot of quite ordinary people are now higher rate taxpayers, because in real terms, the threshold has been allowed to reduce over the years.
		
Click to expand...

They are not going to have to pay larger *gross* contributions but the *nett *cost of their contribution will be higher.

In itself that is no reason why their pension benefits will be any lower.

Perhaps they could arrange for their employer to make a larger contribution although this would, presumably, be at the expense of salary.

Either way, in an era of benefit cuts etc; a restriction in the tax relief on pension contributions by higher earners does not, to me, seem unreasonable.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			They are not going to have to pay larger *gross* contributions but the *nett *cost of their contribution will be higher.

In itself that is no reason why their pension benefits will be any lower.

Perhaps they could arrange for their employer to make a larger contribution although this would, presumably, be at the expense of salary.

Either way, in an era of benefit cuts etc; a restriction in the tax relief on pension contributions by higher earners does not, to me, seem unreasonable.
		
Click to expand...

So? They still have to pay more out of their taxed income to make the same nett contribution to a pension fund. Also benefit cuts apply to middle income families too!


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

By the way, I already have my inflation linked (up to 5%) final salary pension, so I could pull up the ladder and say I'm alright mate. I am campaigning on this issue for the younger generations.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 27, 2016)

One thing I have learnt, over the years, is that irrespective who is in no's 10 & 11 or the colour of the rosette's they wear... Their number one soft option target is PAYE person.. 

Just for once, I'd like to be treated with kid gloves in the manner that Google have... Then, I'd also have the possibility of laughing all the way to the bank as they surely are...

But, its never gonna happen... Is it???


----------



## drdel (Jan 27, 2016)

What Mr Osborne seems to have forgotten is that retirees have the time and, in many cases, the money to spend on which he collects VAT and generally keeps money flowing around. Thus as usual with politicians he's kicking the ball down the road.

Most young people I know have student loans, desperately saving a deposit or paying high rents and saving to help kids with their education. Saving for retirement for many is just a luxury.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

drdel said:



			What Mr Osborne seems to have forgotten is that retirees have the time and, in many cases, the money to spend on which he collects VAT and generally keeps money flowing around. Thus as usual with politicians he's kicking the ball down the road.

Most young people I know have student loans, desperately saving a deposit or paying high rents and saving to help kids with their education. Saving for retirement for many is just a luxury.
		
Click to expand...

The reason that so many people are buying homes to let (and forcing up prices) is because they see that as a better source of income in retirement than a traditional pension!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 27, 2016)

drdel said:



			What Mr Osborne seems to have forgotten is that retirees have the time and, in many cases, the money to spend on which he collects VAT and generally keeps money flowing around. Thus as usual with politicians he's kicking the ball down the road.

Most young people I know have student loans, desperately saving a deposit or paying high rents and saving to help kids with their education. Saving for retirement for many is just a luxury.
		
Click to expand...

I must be missing the point.

What exactly has been done or is proposed that will reduce the income of retirees?

Relief on pension contributions has long been difficult to justify, particularly at higher rates. After all why should the State be enhancing the retirement provision of the better off. The nett cost of contributions is currently lower for HRT payers compared with the rest of society,


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			The reason that so many people are buying homes to let (and forcing up prices) is because they see that as a better source of income in retirement than a traditional pension!  

Click to expand...

And yet they receive no tax relief on the costs which would rather seem to defeat your original argument.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			And yet they receive no tax relief on the costs which would rather seem to defeat your original argument.
		
Click to expand...

That rather depends on the returns you get on your investment. I am not advocating tax avoidance for the sake of it! However a tax break on payments into a pension fund should encourage people to plan for their old age.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			That rather depends on the returns you get on your investment. I am not advocating tax avoidance for the sake of it! However a tax break on payments into a pension fund should encourage people to plan for their old age.  

Click to expand...

But why do they not need that same "encouragement" before purchasing investment properties?

Previously you suggested that people could not afford pension contributions yet now you say that those same folk can afford to purchase Buy to Let properties.

I'm sorry but somewhere along the line your argument does not stack up.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			I must be missing the point.

What exactly has been done or is proposed that will reduce the income of retirees?

Relief on pension contributions has long been difficult to justify, particularly at higher rates. After all why should the State be enhancing the retirement provision of the better off. The nett cost of contributions is currently lower for HRT payers compared with the rest of society,
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't affect the incomes of current retired people with pensions, but it may affect the retirement incomes of those working people who are currently paying into a pension fund. They face a choice of paying bigger contributions, which affects their incomes now, or getting smaller pensions when they eventually retire. Either way they are losing out! A lot of Higher Rate Taxpayers would not regard themselves as being rich!


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			But why do they not need that same "encouragement" before purchasing investment properties?

Previously you suggested that people could not afford pension contributions yet now you say that those same folk can afford to purchase Buy to Let properties.

I'm sorry but somewhere along the line your argument does not stack up.
		
Click to expand...

They can afford to buy But to Let homes with the very low rate mortgages that are currently on offer, and may decide that this is a better use of their money than a traditional pension scheme. Also gives them an asset that they can sell at a profit at a later date.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			They can afford to buy But to Let homes with the very low rate mortgages that are currently on offer, and may decide that this is a better use of their money than a traditional pension scheme. Also gives them an asset that they can sell at a profit at a later date.
		
Click to expand...

Then if they can afford to make that choice I think it would be fair to say that they do not require State funded subsidies before they will contribute to their pensions.

As my dear old Dad used to say " you can't have the toffee and the ha'penny!"


----------



## evahakool (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			The reason that so many people are buying homes to let (and forcing up prices) is because they see that as a better source of income in retirement than a traditional pension!  

Click to expand...

It's a wise move IMO for what you class as ordinary people to invest in property rather than a traditional pension , but I wouldn't agree it's all these peoples fault for forcing up rents.

With the volitile way the markets are who can blame these ordinary people for trying to protect their hard earned money.

More to do with stay away landlords keeping properties empty and unscrupulous landlords, look in any big city in the UK to see how many empty properties there are.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

evahakool said:



			It's a wise move IMO for what you class as ordinary people to invest in property rather than a traditional pension , but I wouldn't agree it's all these peoples fault for forcing up rents.

With the volitile way the markets are who can blame these ordinary people for trying to protect their hard earned money.

More to do with stay away landlords keeping properties empty and unscrupulous landlords, look in any big city in the UK to see how many empty properties there are.
		
Click to expand...

When my wife died she owned a maisonette. Until probate was granted on her will, which took several months, I was not allowed to sell it or rent it out. This may the cause of some of the empty properties!


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 27, 2016)

It's comforting that the government have got Â£130 million off Google for the last 10 years in tax. Oh no it's not coz they have robbed the working man/ miner of more in that time.


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

evahakool said:



			It's a wise move IMO for what you class as ordinary people to invest in property rather than a traditional pension , but I wouldn't agree it's all these peoples fault for forcing up rents.

With the volitile way the markets are who can blame these ordinary people for trying to protect their hard earned money.

More to do with stay away landlords keeping properties empty and unscrupulous landlords, look in any big city in the UK to see how many empty properties there are.
		
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, what do you think the purpose of keeping properties empty is? Unless they are earning rents, they are just money pits!


----------



## evahakool (Jan 27, 2016)

delc said:



			Just out of interest, what do you think the purpose of keeping properties empty is? Unless they are earning rents, they are just money pits!  

Click to expand...


If someone brought a property in a big city and left it empty for 5/10 years and then resold they would make money on them.

Why are so many property's in big city's empty?


----------



## delc (Jan 27, 2016)

evahakool said:



			If someone brought a property in a big city and left it empty for 5/10 years and then resold they would make money on them.

Why are so many property's in big city's empty?
		
Click to expand...

Might as well earn so money from fixed term letting in the meantime!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 27, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			It's comforting that the government have got Â£130 million off Google for the last 10 years in tax. Oh no it's not coz they have robbed the working man/ miner of more in that time.
		
Click to expand...

Labour got zilch from them for half of that time.

Remember that Google is an American company and as such pay their Corporation tax to the USA   They have paid tax and National insurance  for their Employees to the UK as well.

Whats the difference between a Working Man and a Miner?


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 27, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Labour got zilch from them for half of that time.

Remember that Google is an American company and as such pay their Corporation tax to the USA   They have paid tax and National insurance  for their Employees to the UK as well.

Whats the difference between a Working Man and a Miner?
		
Click to expand...

Dont know of a working man that has been robbed of billions from his pension, Yet. But it will happen. So the answer to your question is nothing, eventually.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 28, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Remember that Google is an American company and as such pay their Corporation tax to the USA
		
Click to expand...


Believe they are quite good at avoiding paying any there also...


If you want to take a profit out of a healthy economy then you should be prepared to pay your fair share to see said economy remains in good order...


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 28, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			Believe they are quite good at avoiding paying any there also...


If you want to take a profit out of a healthy economy then you should be prepared to pay your fair share to see said economy remains in good order...
		
Click to expand...

Google has not done anything illegal. 

It's quite normal for Companies to sell their products internationally and pay Corporation Tax in the country they are registered.


----------



## daverollo (Jan 28, 2016)

It's a great topic to bring up Delc.

Having skimmed through it, it's going to take me an hour or more to respond to correct the amount of misinformation within the thread, can't say I have that much spare time on my hands at the moment, need to carry on earning money to put away into my pension!

I manage my own pension fund through a SIPP and well up on current and past pension regimes, final salary included.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 28, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Google has not done anything illegal.
		
Click to expand...


I appreciate they haven't done anything illegal...

Goes back to my earlier post... Since I've been around no government has ever been bothered to ensure there are good rules/laws to see big multi-national corporates contribute their 'fair share' to the pot... Don't really have to whilst they have the soft option of taxing PAYE person to the hilt...


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 28, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			I appreciate they haven't done anything illegal...

Goes back to my earlier post... Since I've been around no government has ever been bothered to ensure there are good rules/laws to see big multi-national corporates contribute their 'fair share' to the pot... Don't really have to whilst they have the soft option of taxing PAYE person to the hilt...
		
Click to expand...

PAYE folk are easy targets - they have very few ways to reduce their tax, and then only by pretty limited amounts. (Very) high earners and companies have more options and the sums/savings involved make it worthwhile. Companies frequently make decisions where the tax considerations are a major factor! Where to base themselves is one of those and it's the various governments that are really 'at fault' in this area imo. If all governments charged the same corporation (mainly) tax, then the problem would not exist!

Multi-national companies are often in the fortunate position of being able to 'bargain' with governments. They, like other PLCs, are also actually legally obliged to provide their shareholders the best return they can, and if avoiding (not evading) tax does that, then they have little choice but to do so. Of course, the shareholders are (generally) then taxed on their proceeds, so the government still actually gets paid - just not one of the several 'churns' that it would normally get!

I still like the idea promoted by a party back home of reducing Corporation Tax to 10%. The reasoning was that that was sufficiently low to eliminate the wasteful, negative, consideration of tax on decision making, allowing executives to focus their efforts positively on building growth!

The government, via tax in its various forms, is really an obscene blood-sucking extortion machine!


----------



## Ethan (Jan 28, 2016)

The Government is hypocritical on corporate tax. In my opinion, corporate tax is not a moral issue, it is a legal one. If the law permits companies to reduce their tax legally, they would be very foolish and in breach of their legal responsibilities to shareholders not to do so. 

HMG knows this because their mates at the big accountancy forms come up with these schemes, HMG supports PFI which is a way to get investment without accruing debt on the public books, Gideon's family firm pays a remarkably small amount of corporation tax because they offshore their money and HMG sold their MHRC buildings to an offshored company (if that isn't the definition of irony).


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 28, 2016)

The difficulty for this and previous Governments lies in attempting to act  unilaterally on corporate taxes.

Ours is far from the only country permitting these "loopholes" and if the UK stood alone in making the necessary changes we would see our Corporation Tax take reduce further.

Fortunately there does appear to finally be more of a will to make the necessary changes by many countries, including UK, so hopefully, in the not too distant future, we may see multi-national companies paying a fairer share.

We shall see!?


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 28, 2016)

Ethan said:



			The Government is hypocritical on corporate tax. In my opinion, corporate tax is not a moral issue, it is a legal one. If the law permits companies to reduce their tax legally, they would be very foolish and in breach of their legal responsibilities to shareholders not to do so. 

HMG knows this because their mates at the big accountancy forms come up with these schemes, HMG supports PFI which is a way to get investment without accruing debt on the public books, Gideon's family firm pays a remarkably small amount of corporation tax because they offshore their money and HMG sold their MHRC buildings to an offshored company (if that isn't the definition of irony).
		
Click to expand...

What's PFI got to do with Corporation Tax? And can we at least acknowledge that the govt that brought in the vast majority of PFI was Labour under Blair.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 28, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			What's PFI got to do with Corporation Tax? And can we at least acknowledge that the govt that brought in the vast majority of PFI was Labour under Blair.
		
Click to expand...

Because PFI is often funded by offshore companies so as well as punitive contract rates they dodge tax. But it is also an off books cheating way of getting capital investment without public debt. It was invented by the Tories but Brown certainly liked it.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 28, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			What's PFI got to do with Corporation Tax? And can we at least acknowledge that the govt that brought in the vast majority of PFI was Labour under Blair.
		
Click to expand...

However, it was brought in by the Conservatives - John Major's lot! Blair/Broon merely continued the 'policy' - for different reasons!

Roundly criticised by Labour, when in opposition, for its creeping privatisation, it was then grabbed for use be Blair/Broon for its 'off book' attributes! 

The only thing this really proves is how hypocritical politicians - of all creeds - are!


----------



## delc (Jan 29, 2016)

Going back to Gordon Brown, almost one of his first stealth taxes was the abolition of Advance Corporation Taxes, which effectively meant that pension funds could no longer claim back the tax paid on dividend income. He presented this in his budget speech almost as if it were a tax cut rather than a tax increase, which effectively it was! I was surprised that so little fuss was made about this at the time! 

Traditional pension funds depend on compound interest over many years, so even a small loss of income every year can have a big effect on the final pot. At the time many pension funds were still somewhat in surplus, so I suppose that GB thought people wouldn't notice this stealth tax, which actually took over Â£5bn per annum out of pension funds. However it proved to be the death knell of the traditional defined benefits pensions which people had enjoyed for over 50 years!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 29, 2016)

Going by the various announcements yesterday - and various commentators view that it wasn't Goergie Boys best day - I do wonder whether he has any idea whatsever about what's going on and any real strategy and vision for the  finances of the country other than 'cut the deficit' - austerity is the only way.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 29, 2016)

Funny that Gideon is so keen to raid higher rate tax payers pension funds. Probably not so worried about inheritance tax dodgers:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thatcher-tax-offshore-haven-property-will-526405


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 29, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Funny that Gideon is so keen to raid higher rate tax payers pension funds. Probably not so worried about inheritance tax dodgers:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thatcher-tax-offshore-haven-property-will-526405

Click to expand...

Cannot see where the pension funds are being raided.

It is being proposed that relief on contributions be restricted to standard rate but that does not constitute a raid on funds.

I would have thought that, based upon your previous pronouncements, you, like SilH, would be whole heartedly in favour of an albeit modest level of equalisation.

For far too long in this country pension contributions by the better off in society has been much more about tax-planning rather than provision for retirement.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 29, 2016)

One of the things that used to tee me off good and proper were bosses that would happily tell you they hadn't taken a salary increase in years... Then just as they were approaching retirement start taking the salary increases that were 'due' to them [apparently]... With the pension we were in being based on the best three of your last ten they were quids in...


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 29, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			One of the things that used to tee me off good and proper were bosses that would happily tell you they hadn't taken a salary increase in years... Then just as they were approaching retirement start taking the salary increases that were 'due' to them [apparently]... With the pension we were in being based on the best three of your last ten they were quids in...
		
Click to expand...

Some of the biggest culprits for this were in the Public Sector. I know through providing pre-retirement financial advice to many on courses sponsored by their employer.

Promoted one or two salary bands but without too many worries over increased responsibilities as they spent much of their final year attending these types of course and being "recommended" to gradually cut back their hours.


----------



## delc (Jan 29, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Cannot see where the pension funds are being raided.

It is being proposed that relief on contributions be restricted to standard rate but that does not constitute a raid on funds.

I would have thought that, based upon your previous pronouncements, you, like SilH, would be whole heartedly in favour of an albeit modest level of equalisation.

For far too long in this country pension contributions by the better off in society has been much more about tax-planning rather than provision for retirement.
		
Click to expand...

The principle used to be what went into a pension fund was tax free, but you were liable for tax on the pension income after retirement. The end of ACT's by Gordon Brown meant that the part of the fund derived from dividend income was no longer tax free, and this has been raiding pension funds to the tune of Â£5bn a year ever since. Up to now personal payments into a pension fund have been tax free, but George Osborne is trying to reduce this concession for higher rate taxpayers, which now include many middle income professionals due to fiscal drag (tax allowances not being upped in line with inflation). So essentially he will get more income tax out these people, and the tax man will be paying less into their pension funds.


----------



## pendodave (Jan 29, 2016)

I'm as spartist as the next comrade, but I find it hard to argue against even the ***** Osborne on trimming tax relief on pension contributions. There are a lot of people and a lot of services in this country that deserve the cash more. Not that Osborne will ever send it to them, but that's another thing altogether. 

Politicians have painted themselves into a ridiculous corner on 'headline' income tax. They therefore have to find other ways of extracting their pound of flesh.

Taxation is the price of civilisation (though obviously the rich and multinationals don't see it that way).


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 29, 2016)

delc said:



			The principle used to be what went into a pension fund was tax free, but you were liable for tax on the pension income after retirement. The end of ACT's by Gordon Brown meant that the part of the fund derived from dividend income was no longer tax free, and this has been raiding pension funds to the tune of Â£5bn a year ever since. Up to now personal payments into a pension fund have been tax free, but George Osborne is trying to reduce this concession for higher rate taxpayers, which now include many middle income professionals due to fiscal drag (tax allowances not being upped in line with inflation). So essentially he will get more income tax out these people, and the tax man will be paying less into their pension funds.
		
Click to expand...

The tax-man does not "pay" into pension funds and by peddling that line you are guilty of continuing to promote the dangerous proposition that pension contributions are more about tax avoidance than retirement planning.

He does, however, grant relief from Income Tax on the individual's contributions and, under the new proposals, will continue to do so albeit limited to standard rate.


----------



## delc (Jan 29, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Some of the biggest culprits for this were in the Public Sector. I know through providing pre-retirement financial advice to many on courses sponsored by their employer.

Promoted one or two salary bands but without too many worries over increased responsibilities as they spent much of their final year attending these types of course and being "recommended" to gradually cut back their hours.
		
Click to expand...

I was booted out of my privatised Utility Company with a full pension for years worked, aged 50 1/2 in 1996. Along with many other middle-aged, middle managers I hasten to add. The justification was that they could employ keen young graduates who would work harder for less money, while transferring us oldies to the pension scheme that was (allegedly) bulging with money at the time. Thus we disappeared from their bottom line. Quite honestly, I enjoyed my job and would have much preferred to work there until my normal retirement age. Financially I did very well out of this by getting other (pensionable) jobs that I didn't enjoy quite so much, but the whole thing seemed crazy to me. I have already received in pension payments several times what my pension pot was worth at the time I retired, so I am not quite sure where the money is coming from? Not complaining mind you!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 29, 2016)

pendodave said:



			I'm as spartist as the next comrade, but I find it hard to argue against even the ***** Osborne on trimming tax relief on pension contributions. There are a lot of people and a lot of services in this country that deserve the cash more. Not that Osborne will ever send it to them, but that's another thing altogether. 

*Politicians have painted themselves into a ridiculous corner on 'headline' income tax*. They therefore have to find other ways of extracting their pound of flesh.

Taxation is the price of civilisation (though obviously the rich and multinationals don't see it that way).
		
Click to expand...

Great point. It's got to the stage where the headline tax rate is almost meanignless as there are so many other ways they use to raise revenue whilst calling themselves the alleged party of low taxation.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 29, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Cannot see where the pension funds are being raided.

It is being proposed that relief on contributions be restricted to standard rate but that does not constitute a raid on funds.

I would have thought that, based upon your previous pronouncements, you, like SilH, would be whole heartedly in favour of an albeit modest level of equalisation.

For far too long in this country pension contributions by the better off in society has been much more about tax-planning rather than provision for retirement.
		
Click to expand...

So in your opinion it is OK to pay tax at higher rates, including punitive marginal rates at certain thresholds, similar loss of personal allowances, reduction in annual allowance and not even get tax deductions at the same rate as you pay in the first place? 

The effect on funds is substantial and unreasonable. The rationale is the increasingly discredited austerity policy not to mention the fact that the people who caused it in the first place continue to get away with it, and are back earning their big bonuses which they can offshore.


----------



## delc (Jan 29, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			The tax-man does not "pay" into pension funds and by peddling that line you are guilty of continuing to promote the dangerous proposition that pension contributions are more about tax avoidance than retirement planning.

He does, however, grant relief from Income Tax on the individual's contributions and, under the new proposals, will continue to do so albeit limited to standard rate.
		
Click to expand...

I may have got this wrong, but when I was in work the pension contribution tax relief was given in the form of a higher personal tax code. I thought they had done away with this, so that you had a standard tax code, but any contributions to a pension scheme was made up by the tax man (like Gift Aid). Thus although the effect was the same, it made it appear that the Government was giving you something, rather than not taking it away from you. Certainly Child Allowance was restructured in that way!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 29, 2016)

delc said:



			I may have got this wrong, but when I was in work the pension contribution tax relief was given in the form of a higher personal tax code. I thought they had done away with this, so that you had a standard tax code, but any contributions to a pension scheme was made up by the tax man (like Gift Aid). Thus although the effect was the same, it made it appear that the Government was giving you something, rather than not taking it away from you. Certainly Child Allowance was restructured in that way!  

Click to expand...

Basically individuals contributions to Personal Pensions are paid net of standard rate tax and if a higher rate tax-payer then the additional relief comes via an adjustment to coding.

If the scheme is an employer sponsored arrangement then members' contributions are deducted from salary thereby granting relief at the highest rate of tax paid.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 29, 2016)

Ethan said:



			So in your opinion it is OK to pay tax at higher rates, including punitive marginal rates at certain thresholds, similar loss of personal allowances, reduction in annual allowance and not even get tax deductions at the same rate as you pay in the first place? 

The effect on funds is substantial and unreasonable. The rationale is the increasingly discredited austerity policy not to mention the fact that the people who caused it in the first place continue to get away with it, and are back earning their big bonuses which they can offshore.
		
Click to expand...

Yes! See post #93 from pendodave. After all many who gain the higher relief will revert to standard rate tax post retirement.

Thus they would in your scenario continue to invest in largely tax exempt funds and receive exemption from higher rate tax on those contributions whilst only paying standard rate tax on the taxable portion of benefits arising from those contributions.

As for the effect upon funds I am afraid that there is none arising from this possible change, unless, of course, you are suggesting that higher rate tax-payers will not or should not contribute to their pensions unless they enjoy the benefit of full tax-relief.


----------



## delc (Jan 29, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Yes! See post #93 from pendodave. After all many who gain the higher relief will revert to standard rate tax post retirement.

Thus they would in your scenario continue to invest in largely tax exempt funds and receive exemption from higher rate tax on those contributions whilst only paying standard rate tax on the taxable portion of benefits arising from those contributions.

As for the effect upon funds I am afraid that there is none arising from this possible change, unless, of course, you are suggesting that higher rate tax-payers will not or should not contribute to their pensions unless they enjoy the benefit of full tax-relief.
		
Click to expand...

The less well off Higher Rate Taxpayers (they are not all millionaires) may not be able to pay so much into a pension fund, and therefore reduce its worth for all contributors!


----------



## pendodave (Jan 29, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			If the scheme is an employer sponsored arrangement then members' contributions are deducted from salary thereby granting relief at the highest rate of tax paid.
		
Click to expand...

This is certainly what happens with mine. You can also lob stuff in the pension to keep your taxable income under 50k to avoid the family allowance clawback if you are suitably motivated I believe.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 29, 2016)

delc said:



			The less well off Higher Rate Taxpayers (they are not all millionaires) may not be able to pay so much into a pension fund, and therefore reduce it's worth for all contributors!
		
Click to expand...

Question of priorities.

Perhaps a smaller house, fewer expensive holidays, no golf club & gym memberships, smaller car.

As I say it depends how much importance is placed upon financial security in retirement.

"Toffee or ha'penny!" not always both.


----------



## delc (Jan 29, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Question of priorities.

Perhaps a smaller house, fewer expensive holidays, no golf club & gym memberships, smaller car.

As I say it depends how much importance is placed upon financial security in retirement.

"Toffee or ha'penny!" not always both.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a lot of younger people don't even think about pensions until it's really too late. These days they are too busy paying back student loans, buying over-priced houses and having children. They may subscribe to the live fast, die young philosophy. By the way, a proportion of people don't live long enough to claim a pension. This happened to my wife who died aged 59. I do get a half rate widowers pension from that though!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 29, 2016)

delc said:



			Unfortunately, a lot of younger people don't even think about pensions until it's really too late. These days they are too busy paying back student loans, buying over-priced houses and having children. They may subscribe to the live fast, die young philosophy
		
Click to expand...

As I said before; priorities

By all means live fast, die young but if you don't go early it isn't for the rest of us to fund your retirement.


----------



## delc (Jan 30, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			As I said before; priorities

By all means live fast, die young but if you don't go early it isn't for the rest of us to fund your retirement.
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't there need to be a confidence thing here? If you invest in a pension, you need to know that your money is safe, have some idea of what income to expect when you do retire, and above all that it cannot be raided by unscrupulous business men (e.g. Robert Maxwell) or Chancellors of the Exchequer (e.g. Gordon Brown, George Osborne) when it suits them!


----------



## Spartacus (Jan 30, 2016)

The financial security of this country has gone to the dogs.

I can see a lot more shoe boxes being shoved under the bed regarding future savings.

MP's don't care what happens to 'our' money as long as 'their' money is safe.

They handout money to everywhere else than look after the people who provide it, including non-contributors and that's the real problem.

If those people who work hard all their life and contribute, there should be no doubt whatsoever that they're going to be looked after. The retirement age should never be moved nor the pots bled dry.

If your a dole bum, an illegal or foreigner with status then you never see a penny out if you ain't paid a penny in.

Get a job or get out.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 30, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			As I said before; priorities

By all means live fast, die young but if you don't go early it isn't for the rest of us to fund your retirement.
		
Click to expand...

Mickie

So you worked in the pensions business for years. Good for you. Doesn't make you an expert in fiscal policy, though, and your opinion on how pensions should be funded is as valid as anyone else, but no more so.

As you know pensions form a part of the big picture of the economy and what happens to people's money. Tax and NI (same thing really) are a huge part of personal finance. With recent changes tapering personal allowances meaning a marginal rate of mid 60%, as well as limits on the lifetime and annual allowances, with more tapering of the annual allowance to come soon, higher rate tax payers get a reduced return on their pension investment compared to others. Is this fair? I would argue not. 

Someone on Â£30k pays something in the region of Â£6500 tax/NI a year. 
Someone on Â£100k pays Â£34000 tax/NI a year
Someone on Â£175000 pays Â£71000 tax/NI a year

So the highest earner there, on 5.5 times the salary of the lowest, pays 11 times the tax and NI. And they will shortly receive less tax relief (not even the same) as the lowest earner, because their annual allowance will taper down and the rate of relief will be fixed for all.

So is it reasonable for the high earner to pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax but receive a disproportionately lower rate of tax relief, not even the same relief, on their pension payments as the lower earner?

The fiscal policy background is that the Tories have conned the public into thinking that the public purse operates like a current account, and must be balanced. That is nonsense, as anyone with an economics 'O' level knows, but it is a way to sell an ideological political policy which involves running down public services so they can sell them off to the private sector. 

They have also decided that high earners will never vote Labour, and some middle earners who may have voted Labour will like the class war that appears to be taking place against high earners, so they can bash these people without much political cost.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 30, 2016)

@Ethan, very much agree with most of your post but I didn't do 'O' level economics. Genuine question, not looking for a political argument. Why shouldn't the public purse be balanced? Money out equals money in. The alternative, in my eyes, is to borrow more and more money, with even more money needed to be spent paying interest on previous borrowing, which in turn means even less available for public services.


----------



## Spartacus (Jan 30, 2016)

Britain should look after Britain and when, and only when, our books are balanced should we look at extending out our financial arms.

This country is too hell bent on helping those who don't deserve help and this is affecting our pensioners the most.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 30, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			@Ethan, very much agree with most of your post but I didn't do 'O' level economics. Genuine question, not looking for a political argument. Why shouldn't the public purse be balanced? Money out equals money in. The alternative, in my eyes, is to borrow more and more money, with even more money needed to be spent paying interest on previous borrowing, which in turn means even less available for public services.
		
Click to expand...

Don't take my opinion for it, read what 77 economists had to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/12/osborne-plan-has-no-basis-in-economics

The irony is that at the same time, Osborne is selling off as much of the family silver as possible, to make short term gains. These may result in long term losses, as with Gordon Brown's sell off of gold. Osborne is also happy for PFI projects at punitive interest rates because these are off balance sheet. This is simply gaming the system, in which something that doesn't count doesn't matter. It mayors a great deal and explains why some many NHS Trusts are in constant financial crisis.

I didn't do 'O' level economics either.


----------



## delc (Jan 30, 2016)

Just out of interest, why shouldn't the public finances be run like a personal bank account, with a requirement to maintain a positive balance. If a private person had behaved like some recent Governments, particularly the Blair/Brown one, they would have gone bankrupt years ago, and also locked up for embezzlement! Governments seem very good at handing out our money to many undeserving causes and spending vast sums on pet projects such as HS2. At best overspending tends to cause inflation, or a need to service debts.


----------



## Spartacus (Jan 30, 2016)

I can never work out why the lottery never made up for the shortfalls in our economy, before it was given to outsiders. 

People didn't mind paying extra pounds out of their wages for the dream.


----------



## delc (Jan 30, 2016)

Spartacus said:



			I can never work out why the lottery never made up for the shortfalls in our economy, before it was given to outsiders. 

People didn't mind paying extra pounds out of their wages for the dream.
		
Click to expand...

A percentage of lottery money does go to the Treasury! Regard it as being a lottery tax!


----------



## Ethan (Jan 30, 2016)

delc said:



			Just out of interest, why shouldn't the public finances be run like a personal bank account, with a requirement to maintain a positive balance. If a private person had behaved like some recent Governments, particularly the Blair/Brown one, they would have gone bankrupt years ago, and also locked up for embezzlement! Governments seem very good at handing out our money to many undeserving causes and spending vast sums on pet projects such as HS2. At best overspending tends to cause inflation, or a need to service debts.
		
Click to expand...

Because much of the economy doesn't operate like you are simply buying, selling, saving and borrowing from your current account. A lot of the borrowing is notional, some counting against the balance sheet, others not. Most western economies have a large national debt which will never be paid off. The US national debt is $21 trillion. The U.K. is Â£1.6 trillion. These will never be paid off and don't need to be. Some countries are also creditors, because they hold debt from other countries and a very small number of countries are bet creditors, hold more debt than they owe. Norway is one such country, due to its oil reserves. 

The yearly budget which results in deficit is a minor and perhaps insignificant part of that and so long as the deficit us accrued by useful investment the economy will benefit in the long term. The important consideration is what the deficit is spent in. If it is spent giving money to hedge fund readers who will offshore it, it is bad debt. If it is spent on something that will drive the economy, it is money well spent. Funny that this Govt which claims to want to reduce the debt is selling off stuff to produce a small amount now but waste money for generations. They would be better increasing the average wage which would drive more money into the economy and which would recirculate in the economy.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 30, 2016)

[/QUOTE]Mickie

So you worked in the pensions business for years. Good for you. Doesn't make you an expert in fiscal policy, though, and your opinion on how pensions should be funded is as valid as anyone else, but no more so.




			Unlike many on here I have never purported to be an expert on any subject; be it, pensions, fiscal policy or the philosophies and ideologies of any of our political parties.





			So is it reasonable for the high earner to pay a disproportionately higher amount of tax but receive a disproportionately lower rate of tax relief, not even the same relief, on their pension payments as the lower earner?
		
Click to expand...

Rather depends upon whether you think tax relief should be granted at all on pension provision. After all other forms of saving and investment do not share this advantage.




			The fiscal policy background is that the Tories have conned the public into thinking that the public purse operates like a current account, and must be balanced. That is nonsense, as anyone with an economics 'O' level knows, but it is a way to sell an ideological political policy which involves running down public services so they can sell them off to the private sector. 

They have also decided that high earners will never vote Labour, and some middle earners who may have voted Labour will like the class war that appears to be taking place against high earners, so they can bash these people without much political cost.
		
Click to expand...

Since 1997 no Conservative leadership would ever make the same sweeping assumption.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## delc (Jan 30, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Because much of the economy doesn't operate like you are simply buying, selling, saving and borrowing from your current account. A lot of the borrowing is notional, some counting against the balance sheet, others not. Most western economies have a large national debt which will never be paid off. The US national debt is $21 trillion. The U.K. is Â£1.6 trillion. These will never be paid off and don't need to be. Some countries are also creditors, because they hold debt from other countries and a very small number of countries are bet creditors, hold more debt than they owe. Norway is one such country, due to its oil reserves. 

The yearly budget which results in deficit is a minor and perhaps insignificant part of that and so long as the deficit us accrued by useful investment the economy will benefit in the long term. The important consideration is what the deficit is spent in. If it is spent giving money to hedge fund readers who will offshore it, it is bad debt. If it is spent on something that will drive the economy, it is money well spent. Funny that this Govt which claims to want to reduce the debt is selling off stuff to produce a small amount now but waste money for generations. They would be better increasing the average wage which would drive more money into the economy and which would recirculate in the economy.
		
Click to expand...

So who do we owe this Â£1.6 trillion to, and what happens if they decide we are not credit worthy and call the debt in?


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 30, 2016)

Ethan said:



			They would be better increasing the average wage which would drive more money into the economy and which would recirculate in the economy.
		
Click to expand...

Which would drive prices up, make our exports more expensive and bring in less money from exports as foreign buyers buy elsewhere.




			Rather depends upon whether you think tax relief should be granted at all on pension provision. After all other forms of saving and investment do not share this advantage.
		
Click to expand...

Whether it's granted or not I'd question the fairness in changing something mid stream. If someone had said 25 years ago we're going to do 'x' for all new pension savers it would have given those new savers the opportunity to plan better than if it's landed on them with virtually no notice and no time to save extra.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 30, 2016)

Mickie

So you worked in the pensions business for years. Good for you. Doesn't make you an expert in fiscal policy, though, and your opinion on how pensions should be funded is as valid as anyone else, but no more so.




			Unlike many on here I have never purported to be an expert on any subject; be it, pensions, fiscal policy or the philosophies and ideologies of any of our political parties.




Rather depends upon whether you think tax relief should be granted at all on pension provision. After all other forms of saving and investment do not share this advantage.



Since 1997 no Conservative leadership would ever make the same sweeping assumption.
		
Click to expand...

Well, you are expert in cherry picking a few points to argue and ignoring most.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 30, 2016)

delc said:



			So who do we owe this Â£1.6 trillion to, and what happens if they decide we are not credit worthy and call the debt in?
		
Click to expand...

It would be like Greece, an enormous debt and they didn't let them default and go bust. Everyone borrows off everyone else and the world economy would go completely pop if we, or one of the bigger countries defaulted due to the domino effect


----------



## Ethan (Jan 30, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Which would drive prices up, make our exports more expensive and bring in less money from exports as foreign buyers buy elsewhere.



Whether it's granted or not I'd question the fairness in changing something mid stream. If someone had said 25 years ago we're going to do 'x' for all new pension savers it would have given those new savers the opportunity to plan better than if it's landed on them with virtually no notice and no time to save extra.
		
Click to expand...

Putting money in the hands of average workers is a well known way to drive the economy. Isn't that what the Tories say they are doing? 

Ordinary people spend their money on goods and services, the recipients do likewise and so on. This is recirculating money and money put in ordinary people's hands has a high multiplication factor. This is the same idea as quantitative easing except it isn't given to the bank to skim lots off the tip before lending some reluctantly.


----------



## delc (Jan 30, 2016)

chrisd said:



			It would be like Greece, an enormous debt and they didn't let them default and go bust. Everyone borrows off everyone else and the world economy would go completely pop if we, or one of the bigger countries defaulted due to the domino effect
		
Click to expand...

If I've done my sums properly, the National Debt works out at about Â£26k for each UK citizen. I suppose that the Government could have a whip round if the worst comes to the worse!  :mmm:


----------



## chrisd (Jan 30, 2016)

delc said:



			If I've done my sums properly, the National Debt works out at about Â£26k for each UK citizen. I suppose that the Government could have a whip round if the worst comes to the worse!  :mmm:
		
Click to expand...

If the Government had given every person in the country an equal share of the quantitative easing money, and told them they had to spend it within a year, how much would still be swishing around in the economy instead of banks balance sheets?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 30, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Mickie

So you worked in the pensions business for years. Good for you. Doesn't make you an expert in fiscal policy, though, and your opinion on how pensions should be funded is as valid as anyone else, but no more so.

Well, you are expert in cherry picking a few points to argue and ignoring most.
		
Click to expand...

And you Sir are a pompous oaf who continually attempt to belittle and patronise those that have the temerity not to share your narrow, left of centre, centralist control views.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 30, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			And you Sir are a pompous oaf who continually attempt to belittle and patronise those that have the temerity not to share your narrow, left of centre, centralist control views.
		
Click to expand...

Like I said, avoiding the questions. I rest my case (modestly).

Oh and I am arguing against taking away tax relief for higher earners. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn agrees with me on that ;-)


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Jan 30, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Like I said, avoiding the questions. I rest my case (modestly).

Oh and I am arguing against taking away tax relief for higher earners. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn agrees with me on that ;-)
		
Click to expand...

I cannot answer a question when one is not asked. Your statements were precisely that, statements and did not demand nor warrant an answer.

However, you did accuse me of claiming a level of expertise which I had not and I also clearly stated my view on the question of tax relief which was, after all, the OP's point; not fiscal policy.

As for your last paragraph I presume that you are, therefore, arguing for personal interest rather than the greater good.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 30, 2016)

Guys if there is a problem please take it to PM

Ta Muchly


----------



## Ethan (Jan 30, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			I cannot answer a question when one is not asked. Your statements were precisely that, statements and did not demand nor warrant an answer.

However, you did accuse me of claiming a level of expertise which I had not and I also clearly stated my view on the question of tax relief which was, after all, the OP's point; not fiscal policy.

As for your last paragraph I presume that you are, therefore, arguing for personal interest rather than the greater good.
		
Click to expand...

OK, is that an admission you were wrong about left wing views, or just throwing the toys out?

As for the statements which were not questions, please use these as you see fit, and I await your answers: ?????????????????????


----------



## harpo_72 (Jan 30, 2016)

I think the crux of all of this is you need to look out for yourself. Pensions are tricky, you wont all be happy... However you all have the opportunity to manage your money in different ways. You could blow your income every month, you could save in an isa or play the stocks, you could buy a second property ... You could just inherit from a rich relative... 
I spread my choices, hopefully something positive will come of it. I hope my son will be able to have the privileged life I have had. I hope my wife is supported after my passing. I hope we can have a good retirement together and not be in the position my parents are in.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 31, 2016)

Gideon is a lying hypocrite. 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/30/google-tory-battle-protect-30bn-tax-haven-bermuda

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/01/31/osborne-tax-avoiders-dream-look-tax-affairs-prove/


----------



## delc (Feb 1, 2016)

I have just been informed that I can increase my State Pension by up to Â£25 a week (Â£1300 per annum) by paying a lump sum of just over Â£20k. Problem is that I would have to live for another 15.3 years to make this worthwhile, and the money has gone to the Treasury for good. My spare cash is in a savings account paying 2%, so I could draw out the same Â£1300 a year from it for 15 years and still earn interest on what is left, so I don't think I will be taking this offer up.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 1, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Gideon is a lying hypocrite. 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/30/google-tory-battle-protect-30bn-tax-haven-bermuda

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/01/31/osborne-tax-avoiders-dream-look-tax-affairs-prove/

Click to expand...

..and before anyone says it - all politicians are *not* like this - there is only ONE CotE - and it is Osborne.  

The Tories can bleat on all they want (as they are doing) about Labour not doing much at all about tax avoidance and tax havens when they were in power - but Labour were not embarked on a crusade to knacker the poorest of our society and our public services (and behind the scenes also starting to have a go at the savers) in the name of austerity and 'balancing the books'.  Osborne, Cameron, IDS and Hunt et al are.


----------



## delc (Feb 1, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Putting money in the hands of average workers is a well known way to drive the economy. Isn't that what the Tories say they are doing? 

Ordinary people spend their money on goods and services, the recipients do likewise and so on. This is recirculating money and money put in ordinary people's hands has a high multiplication factor. This is the same idea as quantitative easing except it isn't given to the bank to skim lots off the tip before lending some reluctantly.
		
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but isn't the problem that people would spend the money on German or Japanese cars, and everything else that is now made in China. Since we no longer have much of a manufacturing industry, the effect on our balance of trade would be pretty serious!  I do accept the Keynesian argument that workers are also consumers, but this probably no longer really applies in a Globalised world!  :mmm:


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 1, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			..and before anyone says it - all politicians are *not* like this - there is only ONE CotE - and it is Osborne.  

The Tories can bleat on all they want (as they are doing) about Labour not doing much at all about tax avoidance and tax havens when they were in power - but Labour were not embarked on a crusade to knacker the poorest of our society and our public services (and behind the scenes also starting to have a go at the savers) in the name of austerity and 'balancing the books'.  Osborne, Cameron, IDS and Hunt et al are.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and in politics everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Personally, I have pretty much the same disparaging view of many Labour politicians, especially those that created a society where so many feel they they are entitled to everything for nothing.


----------



## delc (Feb 1, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and in politics everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Personally, I have pretty much the same disparaging view of many Labour politicians, especially those that created a society where so many feel they they are entitled to everything for nothing.
		
Click to expand...

I think that one thing that Gordon Brown tried to do was to make us all dependent on the State. Thus many tax allowances were turned into benefits, such as Income Support and Child Tax Credits. His party also tacitly allowed mass immigration into this country in the hope that they would be grateful and support the Labour Party for ever more. Unfortunately for him and his Party, probably because of the effects of the banking crisis, and Mrs Duffy and Bigotgate, his cunning plan didn't work and they were deservedly thrown out of office. We then had five years of coalition government, which unfortunately caused a lot of damage to the Liberal Party. After Gordon Brown resigned as Leader of the Opposition, he was replaced by that useless idiot Ed Miliband, and so we now have a majority Tory Government, red in tooth and claw, with no serious opposition! So what do we do?  :mmm:


----------

