Hedging against a Corbyn Govt

Malthusian

Afraid_of_Kittens wrote: »

Perhaps a 1% increase of employer pension contributions would be of far more long term benefit to the workforce than the state taking a 10% control of 7000+ companies.

Well, this is undoubtedly true, because the state confiscating 10% of shares from companies would have no benefit at all.

A 1% increase in employer contributions would be small potatoes though. Someone on a full time minimum wage job (£16k a year) saving the current maximum of 8% into a pension for 40 years, with 2% growth above inflation, will accumulate a fund of £79k in today's money at the end.

Using the rule of thumb of 4% it will top up their State Pension by about £3k, which doesn't sound like a lot to most S&I regulars, but for someone used to living on £16k a week, a pension income of £11.5k is not bad (70% of working income).

Increase the 8% to 9% and all that adds is another £500 a year in regular income.

Now, when you're on minimal income, an extra tenner a week does make a difference.

But not under a Labour Government, because all of this extra income will be means-tested away.

Socialism is not about poor v rich but poor v poor. A Labour Government will not allow a comrade to be worse off than their neighbour just because their neighbour was "lucky" enough to accumulate a modest pension fund.

Albermarle

Socialism is not about poor v rich but poor v poor

Or you can go to the US where it is the Very, Very Rich vs everybody else

Paul_Herring

michaels wrote: »

Labour plan to renationalise at a discount a number of UK companies and to confiscate 10% of all UK shares.

You forgot "increasing the wage bill by at least 20%."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/23/labour-plans-give-british-workers-four-day-week-pay/
- Mr McDonnell added that the party would eradicate in-work poverty within five years, increase the minimum wage to £10 and scrap universal credit.
- next Labour government will reduce the average full-time working week to 32 hours within the next decade. It will be a shorter working week with no loss of pay
- British workers are currently entitled to 28 days by law, but Labour’s plans would likely see this entitlement increased significantly.

And "stealing homes":

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/21/homes-left-empty-six-months-could-seized-councils-radical-plans/
- Homes left empty for more than six months could be seized by councils under radical plans set to be endorsed by Labour

And business premises:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/16/labour-to-give-councils-power-to-seize-boarded-up-shops
- Labour will allow councils to seize boarded up shops to give them a new lease of life as cooperatives or community centres,


How can you possibly think that any of all this is anything other than a net-positive gain for the UK economy? You should be putting more of your pension fund into the UK, not less!!!one1eleventy

/s

foofi22

michaels wrote: »

Labour plan to renationalise at a discount a number of UK companies and to confiscate 10% of all UK shares.

Is there a source for this? I'm neither Labour nor Tory but surely this cannot be a genuine policy


Edit...


https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6


https://news.sky.com/story/labours-iof-share-plan-will-be-seen-as-theft-by-companies-11507375

Paul_Herring

foofi22 wrote: »

Is there a source for this? I'm neither Labour nor Tory but surely this cannot be a genuine policy

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-work

- Firms would transfer at least 1% of ownership into the fund each year, up to a maximum 10%.
- Dividend payments up to £500 a year would go to staff, while any returns eligible for the fund above that level would go to the government
- Foreign-owned companies would not be included

Thrugelmir

Paul_Herring wrote: »

- Firms would transfer at least 1% of ownership into the fund each year, up to a maximum 10%.

Creation of new shares would directly hit company profitability. As the shares issued would be charged to the profit and loss account.

saver_ali

Given recent events, it makes you wonder if businesses would challenge any such move in the Supreme Court!

GunJack

Paul_Herring wrote: »

- Foreign-owned companies would not be included

:rotfl: that'll be about 80% of companies exempt then!! lol.

EdSwippet

Afraid_of_Kittens wrote: »

IF this did happen then I can see the next Conservative Government overturning it within days of being in office.

Perhaps. But then, the same could have been said about the effective 60% tax rate introduced by Alistair Darling on earnings between £100k and around £113k in the dying days of the last Labour government. Not only is that still with us, but the band is now nearly twice as wide as when the Conservatives came into power, stretching from £100k to £125k,

As a general rule, it seems unwise to now rely on the Conservatives to be either business friendly or investor friendly.

Malthusian

saver_ali wrote: »

Given recent events, it makes you wonder if businesses would challenge any such move in the Supreme Court!

The ancient law of iactum meret applies (it's worth a go).

Most likely the Corbyn government would collapse by the time it gets to the Supreme Court, whether the case succeeds or not.

That would be one neat solution to the supposed problem of rising extremism in liberal democracies. Just have a Supreme Court reverse everything they do.

Well, until people get sufficiently angry that they elect a really extreme party that shoots all the judges.

EdSwippet wrote: »

Perhaps. But then, the same could have been said about the effective 60% tax rate introduced by Alistair Darling on earnings between £100k and around £113k in the dying days of the last Labour government. Not only is that still with us, but the band is now nearly twice as wide as when the Conservatives came into power, stretching from £100k to £125k

Er, it's twice as wide because the Tories nearly doubled the personal allowance. Someone earning £120k currently has a £39,500 tax bill. If the Tories hadn't "widened the 60% tax band" - in other words, if they'd kept the personal allowance at £6,500 - their tax bill would be £40,500.

They pay less tax thanks to the widening of the personal allowance (and 60% tax band), just like anyone with income under £125,000. To those over it makes no difference, they have 0 personal allowance either way.

You are Diane Abbott and I claim my five billion, er seven hundred, er twenty eleventy pounds.

I'm certainly not going to say that the Tories shouldn't have abolished it, but they had bigger fish to fry. Raising the personal allowance was a much better use of political capital.