Pensions and the EU

Sapphire

atush wrote: »

But then again, I dont read the express

I don't generally, either. Unfortunately, the main part of the media suppresses certain stories, so I check the website from time to time, then go to other sources on the Internet to assess a story. I posted this one here to get the opinions of others.

There have also been reports in a few papers that the EU wants to control the taxes of all the EU countries, and to have records of all taxpayers (though this, like many other things, is being suppressed until after the vote). Nuts if this is true, given the very different economies of European countries, and that it could be a possible way in which the German-run super-state called the EU would like to extract money from taxpayers of more affluent countries and spread it around, with a dividend for the Brussels bureaucracy, no doubt. :T

uk1

Sapphire wrote: »

I don't generally, either. Unfortunately, the main part of the media suppresses certain stories, so I check the website from time to time, then go to other sources on the Internet to assess a story. I posted this one here to get the opinions of others.

If you have an ipad, and take the trouble to set up the newish imbed News app it throws up news items every day that are likely to be of interest to you in a customised newspaper with links to read the original full story.

it essentially means that you have a personalised daily newspaper that is updated throughout the day.

Jeff

Malthusian

uk1 wrote: »

So you feel that every point he has made is a weak one?

Jeff

4-6 aren't weak points and would have had made a stronger case if he'd focused on that. But then he'd just be saying what everyone has already said. So instead he seems to have felt the need to waffle on to justify his guru status and generate a Buzzfeed-style headline.

uk1

Malthusian wrote: »

4-6 aren't weak points and would have had made a stronger case if he'd focused on that. But then he'd just be saying what everyone has already said. So instead he seems to have felt the need to waffle on to justify his guru status and generate a Buzzfeed-style headline.

He is writing a complex issue for Express readers.

It may have been written differently if it had been for Times or FT readers. I see them all as being viable points although I agree some are stronger than others. In my view it is when you consider all of them together ie strong/weak or important/unimportant it gives those that aren't as knowledgeable as yourself (like myself) additional points to consider.

Jeff

Radiantsoul

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has calculated that the European Commission's figures has warned of "one-off implementation costs of around £328 million for UK private sector schemes".
It continued: "Recurring costs are around a further £7.5m per year in annual recurring costs."


So that is a person cost of £17 in yearone and 40p per year ongoing.

msallen

This makes the Daily Mail look like a quality newspaper.

dunstonh

Radiantsoul wrote: »

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association has calculated that the European Commission's figures has warned of "one-off implementation costs of around £328 million for UK private sector schemes".
It continued: "Recurring costs are around a further £7.5m per year in annual recurring costs."


So that is a person cost of £17 in yearone and 40p per year ongoing.

To put that in further perspective, the retail distribution review, which has a wider impact on the average consumer has been costed by the FCA as having:
1 - for intermediaries; an immediate one off cost of around £275-£370 million with ongoing annual costs of £100-£120 million.
2 - for providers; an immediate one off cost of around £330-£385 million with ongoing annual costs of £70-£85 million.

So, the UK is quite capable of creating its own costs on its own industries and larger ones that that too.

jamesd

Malthusian wrote: »

2. DB schemes have been closed because the EU forced them to pay what they promised. If they were allowed to renege on their promises to members as long as they made their "best effort", employers might have kept them open. Nonsense. A world in which the pension scheme doesn't know what it has to pay and the working joe doesn't know what he's going to get is not tenable.

That's the world we are in today, with firms not knowing what it's going to cost in defined benefit schemes and employees not knowing what they are going to get or have to pay to get a target income in defined contribution schemes. State pension entitlements are also mutable, as we've seen here with varying inflation adjustments and as has been seen for example in Greece where pensions were cut in raw number terms not just from reduced inflation.

Malthusian wrote: »

Modern civilisation relies upon people being able to rely on certain financial assumptions, like the fact that money in the bank is safe. And being able to rely on the fact that a guarantee is a guarantee is another.

Money in the bank isn't necessarily safe, both above the FSCS limit and as we've seen in Cyprus where there was confiscation to pay for a bailout.

Sapphire

uk1 wrote: »

If you have an ipad, and take the trouble to set up the newish imbed News app it throws up news items every day that are likely to be of interest to you in a customised newspaper with links to read the original full story.

it essentially means that you have a personalised daily newspaper that is updated throughout the day.

Jeff

I don't have an iPad – only an iMac used for editorial work – and I don't have time to look at news in depth, so I flit from source to source while working. I actually find the quality of news facts in most newspapers to be very poor. I remember taking up an issue with a particular Guardian reporter (and later their editor) with regard to a (non-British) issue that I was an expert in. I knew the reporter not only slanted the issue so that it suited the Guardian agenda, but also reported completely incorrect facts. Being somewhat naive, it was only then that I realised that the news facts in any newspaper need to be taken with a pinch of salt (though of course there can be some very good articles that are not day-to-day news, but have been clearly thought through and written by experts who have had time to think through what they are writing and provide reliable information).

bigadaj

Sapphire wrote: »

I don't have an iPad – only an iMac used for editorial work – and I don't have time to look at news in depth, so I flit from source to source while working. I actually find the quality of news facts in most newspapers to be very poor. I remember taking up an issue with a particular Guardian reporter (and later their editor) with regard to a (non-British) issue that I was an expert in. I knew the reporter not only slanted the issue so that it suited the Guardian agenda, but also reported completely incorrect facts. Being somewhat naive, it was only then that I realised that the news facts in any newspaper need to be taken with a pinch of salt (though of course there can be some very good articles that are not day-to-day news, but have been clearly thought through and written by experts who have had time to think through what they are writing and provide reliable information).

It's very rarely you'll find a well written article in most newspapers, they are a dying media in any case as readers die off and younger people get their news for free from the web, radio or tv.

The primary interest of any paper is to sell copies, which is pro,opted by a dramatic and often misleading headline that then gets explained a bit more rationally to ensure they don't get sued.

Papers survive by sales and advertising, with the advertising targeted at their typical audience. So facts have very little to Dow iht reporting if you can reinforce the prejudices if your typical reader then that will do just fine.