MSE News: Pension age rise bought forward

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

I'm getting blamed for your posts then

Yes, "ready, fire, aim" seems to be something of a trend in this thread.

dunstonh

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, "ready, fire, aim" seems to be something of a trend in this thread.

Forum posters with the accuracy of a scud missile.

Gracchus_Babeuf

dunstonh wrote: »

I'm getting blamed for your posts then

However, now we are on that particular topic..... If the wealth generators went away, unemployment would go up and tax revenue would fall. That would leave an increasing number not paying tax and those that are left having to pay more. So, if they are low earners and enjoy the benefit of a widescreen tv that is bigger than their lounge, then perhaps they shouldnt be so against higher earners. Without them, they wouldnt have that widescreen tv.

Whenever I hear the term 'wealth generators' I turn off completely. There is no such thing. The independently very rich who own international businesses pay almost no tax as it is, due to the nature of taxation. Tax changes are very unlikely to make any impact on these people - they can avoid it regardless of any tax regime in the UK. As for the small trader types, many wouldn't be affected by the top rates of tax anyway.

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Whenever I hear the term 'wealth generators' I turn off completely. There is no such thing. The independently very rich who own international businesses pay almost no tax as it is, due to the nature of taxation.

I get the feeling that you know very little about taxation and even less about running a business of any significant size.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Lokolo wrote: »

The great British lifestyle, live for today, forget about tomorrow.

What evidence can you provide for your assertion? My partner earns a meagre £24.5k a year and coughs up 10% to her pension scheme, while her employer matches that contribution. That will probably get her a pittance of £4k a year private pension to supplement the state pension. So what is she supposed to do? Put in 30%, 40%? What would she have left? A few crumbs left over.

Most people have mortgages, council tax and household bills to pay! Or have you forgotten that, idiot? :mad:

gadgetmind

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

That will probably get her a pittance of £4k a year private pension to supplement the state pension.

I tried using a pension calculator to check that, but there is key information lacking on age and size of current pot. I did however manage to get an income of only £4k pa by assuming age 51 and zero currently in the pot. Any older and it would be less, but with increasing age surely comes a larger existing pot?

Most people have mortgages, council tax and household bills to pay!

Yes, and they will also have to pay the latter two in retirement, so need to make costed plans (not arm waving) on how they are going to afford this.

Perhaps if you stopped frothing and trying to insult people, and instead started a new thread asking how your partner can maximise her income, you might actually get some helpful advice.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Pincher wrote: »

The whole concept of pensions is flawed.

If I had £200,000 in a pension fund, I don't want to give it to some insurance company, who gives me £10,000 a year, which I can't live on, and then when I die at 73, I have only got back £80,000. They will have STOLEN £120,000 plus interest of MY money!

I want to have a custodian of my money, who will give a decent interest for long term deposit, and who will hand the remainder money over to my heirs because the Probate Office is watching.

In terms of State Pension, I want them to stop pretending you can live on it.

There will be no state pension, but there will be state supervised facilities for old people who cannot afford to live on their own resources. Able bodied , of sound mind people will be given jobs and responsibilites to look after the less able.

Socially mal-adjusted younger people like bankers, financial adversers, property developers and "charity workers" who con old people into monthly donations and get commission will be forced to help. They will be implanted with electrodes, so that the old age managers can punish them for not doing their job properly.

Any spare labour and resources can be used to do useful things, like gardening, picking up litter, lollypop duty.

I agree that private pensions are a total scam. You will find plenty of people on this forum who will extol the praises of private pensions, but that is usually because they are financial advisers who have a lot to gain. The whole thing is a gigantic scam. Why? Because there is no scheme out there that can guarantee you a given payout at a given age, based on your contributions. It's all based on stock market gambling, and as I'm sure you are aware, the stock market has performed like a dead duck since around 10 years ago - practically zero growth. The growth rates of the 80s and 90s were a blip; if you look at the historic performance of the markets in the last 100 years it isn't good. Of course you never get illustrations that show this, the advisers know how to lie with statistics.

So what's the answer: a decent state scheme like the ones in most other European countries. We need a state pension of £250 a week for each adult with 30 years of contributions - simple as that. If it means paying 20-22% in NI contributions then so be it - rather that than waste money gambling on the markets. People need security, not empty promises.

bilbo51

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Whenever I hear the term 'wealth generators' I turn off completely.

Apparently you don't. You just carry on.:p

The_Angry_Jock

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

So what's the answer: a decent state scheme like the ones in most other European countries. We need a state pension of £250 a week for each adult with 30 years of contributions - simple as that.

And what about people who don't have 30 years of contributions?

Gracchus_Babeuf

gadgetmind wrote: »

Actually, most of them are *fiercely* proud of their country, and work hard to try and keep a strong UK base, but the UK's historical anti-success stance tends to drive many of them overseas.

If a growing company has a few sites across the globe, do you think they will expand headcount in those areas that nurture expanding companies or those that try and tax success into extinction? If bright people have a choice of the company's sites to work in, do you think they will choose the one that encourages hard work by letting people retain the fruits of said labour or one in a country were hard work is discouraged by punitive taxation?

If a company has to contract, which site do you think they will contract fastest and perhaps even close down?

Anyone who doubts this really needs to work in the management structure of a large multi-national for a few years as they'd soon realise how easy it is for a country to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.

Of course, we do have people like Dyson who are so proud of their country that they do manage to cling on, but they are swimming against the tide.

Melodramatic exaggerations. People start businesses in order to make money. They are fully aware that they take *massive* risks in so doing, and then it seems the government or banks are conveniently to blame every time a business folds because of ant-business policies, interest rates, etc. There is always an excuse. The truth is that many businesses go under because they simply could never succeed in the first place. Look at the Dragons on BBC2 - all the moronic ideas that people come up with simply baffle me. Hardly surprising that so few of the Dragons invest in anything.