Labour propose confiscating 10% uk equities - pension planning response?

Paul_Herring

I see Northampton Council are bankrupt

Bad example. Egregiously wasted local taxpayer's money on fripperies:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/northamptonshire-council-spent-money-on-luxuries-before-bringing-in-spending-cuts-xzxj6x3dd

https://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/northants-county-council-spent-9-000-on-jamaica-flights-1-8545442

To pick a random month:
https://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/council-and-democracy/transparency/open-data-our-publications/Documents/Expenditure%20exceeding%20%c2%a3500/SpendData_2017-18_Mar.csv

£385K on (internal) consultancy.
£255K on (external) consultancy.
£255K on furniture
£322K on computers.

OldMusicGuy

Moby wrote: »

I did and noticed we are second to bottom regarding outcomes in the NHS and I wonder if the funding in Education takes account of the increase in class sizes?

That's the trouble with the NHS. It is both a wonderful concept (try living in the US and having a relative suffer serious illness with no health insurance like I did!!) but also too big, unwieldy and complex to be successful without major reform. There are many scandals of care in the NHS, I have had two relatives that received appalling care (one died, the other suffered a terminal illness in far more discomfort and pain than was necessary). Another relative received appalling care in one area, moved to a new area and has since received fantastic care (lifesaving in fact). The current NHS is not fit for purpose, nor is it fit for the way the population's demographics and health are changing. Yet Labour "sanctifies" everything to do with the NHS (no criticism allowed) and insists the answer is just "throw more money at it". That's why I am concerned, and I don't like Labour dressing up a proposed tax grab as "helping workers own companies".

I heard an interview on Radio 4 about education funding and the head teachers' strike. A head was being interviewed and the interviewer stated that the UK is third in Europe in terms of per head pupil funding, ahead of countries like France and Germany (not sure how true that is though, I haven't checked it). The head was then asked how the cutbacks were affecting their school, and the most serious impact they could come up with was having to cancel trombone lessons for year 4 pupils.

I've worked for over 40 years on finance and IT systems in both public and private sectors. My conclusion is that there are plenty of examples of poorly run public and private organisations. It usually comes down to the people involved. Deciding what services should be publicly run and how they are funded is a subject worthy of serious debate and sadly I don't think we are going to get that from our current political landscape.

GunJack

What's even more stupid about these proposals is that they're just not needed - a few tweaks here & there could sort out the loopholes, discrepancies and downright idiotic situations in the current tax system so this kind of thing is redundant thinking....

Look at sal sac down to around min wage levels, leaving the person then free to claim tax credits and other such stuff....barking in the extreme, especially when people on higher than average base salaries do it...and I know that may upset some on here, but it's about time the country was more realistic.

Think Graham Norton was on the right lines this week...pay what you should and the country will be better off as a whole...would be easier and fairer than Corbyn & McDonald's total stupidity.

Paul_Herring

the interviewer stated that the UK is third in Europe in terms of per head pupil funding

Per head funding, OTOH...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10027636/More-state-school-head-teachers-paid-100000-salaries.html

System

Paul_Herring wrote: »

It means that the companies would have to retrieve (i.e. buy back) 10% of those shares back from shareholders,.

So it would apply to public companies only?
If the shares aren't quoted then they would only be re-purchasable by negotiation with the shareholders.

Supposing the shares were owned abroad, by another company, or by a little old lady living on dividends? Or a trade union perhaps ?
If there's no market for the shares who would determine their value?

Paul_Herring

So it would apply to public companies only?

I'm sure there'll be a clause, or three-hundred, obliging non-publicly listed companies to comply with this directive somehow.

Presuming it's been thought about, of course...

LHW99

The idea that state control/intervention is always bad is too simplistic imo.

I can somewhat agee with this in terms of the "always". However, the idea of there being a bit of state control / interference / pressure within what is otherwise a privately run system is probably as likely to cause problems as having a bit of private input into state run systems. Certainly not all bad, but far more difficult to get a good working balance and ensure value for money all round. IMO you tend to get the "neither fish nor fowl" situation.

zagfles

Moby wrote: »

I did and noticed we are second to bottom regarding outcomes in the NHS

See that's the great thing about reports like this - you can cherry pick the one category which feeds your confirmation bias and ignore the 10 others which don't...

and I wonder if the funding in Education takes account of the increase in class sizes?

...and if that fails, just assume the figures are wrong, out of date or biased.

mgdavid

Moby wrote: »

I did and noticed we are second to bottom regarding outcomes in the NHS ........

bingo! that's why it needs root and branch change applied. You won't get that while it remains in public sector control.