Labours pension threat - daily express

Malthusian

GSP wrote: »

Not the first I have heard of staunch remainers being more petrified of Corbyn than Brexit and the effect on their money, and will back the Conservatives.

Perfectly rational decision. The issue is not whether we should leave the EU, but having done so, whether we should be aligned with the USA / EU / democratic Pacific or Russia / Iran / China.

I don't remember many Remainers selling the benefits of aligning with the ex-Soviet bloc during the 2016 campaign.

Silvertabby

“ Ditto. Yes, there are some women (and men) out there in genuine need, but I'm heartily sick of some of the 'reasons' some women are trotting as proof of their 'need' for their pensions from 60.

LHW99 wrote: »

Which could surely be solved by keeping pension credit age to 60 for that cohort, but that doesn't look like a large lump sum I suppose.

More than you'd expect (for the taxpayer), as it would have to apply equally to men. In Mr S's case, his pension credit age was 63 and some months, being the age a woman would have received her State pension. He was already retired and obviously didn't qualify for any means tested benefits - but he did get the winter fuel allowance and - the biggee - 2 years of 'free' NI contributions. The NI credits alone gave him an extra £9 per week on his State pension. Over 20 years (although I intend keeping him for much longer than that!) that's a 'handout' of over £10K when you factor in cost of living increases.

Also WASPE etc are dead against any means testing, as their leaders (who can afford to travel first class and quaff champagne on their way to their protests and demonstrations) wouldn't qualify.

LHW99

Also WASPE etc are dead against any means testing, as their leaders (who can afford to travel first class and quaff champagne on their way to their protests and demonstrations) wouldn't qualify.

Which I suspect is even more the crux of the matter!

badmemory

Maybe it is time, before even more MPs embarrass themselves over these pensions, that someone sent their researchers a link to the 1990s archives of papers like the Guardian, even the Express & even some of the trashier papers of the time. May help to stop them shooting themselves in the foot!

JoeCrystal

Well, the Conservative Manifesto is a bit light on the details overall compares to the other parties! I am surprised that it is so low key compares to others.

We will keep the triple lock, the winter fuel payment, the older person’s bus pass and other pensioner benefits, ensuring that older people have the security and dignity they deserve.

A number of workers, disproportionately women, who earn between £10,000 and £12,500 have been missing out on pension benefits because of a loophole affecting people with net pay pension schemes. We will conduct a comprehensive review to look at how to fix this issue.

We will reintroduce legislation that protects pension pots from being plundered by reckless bosses, helps savers be better informed with pension dashboards, and creates a new style of pension scheme which is more sustainable for workers and employer

DragonQ

Deleted_User wrote: »

There are two scenarios:

1. Corbyn pays below the market value. That’s robbing pensions like the article describes.

Why is it when a government wants to nationalise an industry and pay a discounted rate, it's "robbing", but when a government wants to privatise something at a discounted rate, it's not? When the Tories sell off public assets (owned by taxpayers) to mostly rich investors and undervalue the assets, where's the compensation for taxpayers? I'd argue that when re-nationalising we should take into account both the current value of the assets and all of the profits made by investors whilst it was in private hands (including any initial undervalue during the sale).


And we're not even taking into account the fact that some of the industries Labour is talking about are literally gravy trains with no competition at all and so should never have been privatised in the first place!

Triumph13

You seem to have stuck in your head that these industries are owned by greedy rich people who deserve to be punished for making profits. In reality most things are owned by institutional investors and make up the funds which everyone's pensions are invested in. In essence they are already owned by the public.

DragonQ

Triumph13 wrote: »

You seem to have stuck in your head that these industries are owned by greedy rich people who deserve to be punished for making profits. In reality most things are owned by institutional investors and make up the funds which everyone's pensions are invested in. In essence they are already owned by the public.

Like most investments, some is from pensions and some is from extremely wealthy individuals. The latter would be affected more than any individual in the former group. If a company is taken into public ownership then there are no more profits paying dividends for those with shares...but everyone benefits because there is no increase in prices to begin with to generate those profits (yes, even those with pensions). For water specifically, see here: https://corporatewatch.org/who-owns-your-water-and-how-theyll-try-to-keep-it/

Profits shouldn't be punished, it's the fact that these industries shouldn't be in private hands to begin with that's the problem. In certain industries, the profit motive is directly incompatible with public interest (e.g. water, prisons) and completely unfair given the impossibility of competition (e.g. water, railways). The whole privatisation movement was a scam. The claim that it'll be great because "you, the common man, can own shares in these companies" is absurd for two reasons: one, the common man already owned a stake in the companies because they were in public hands, and two, it's always those with the most wealth who can generate the most wealth when it comes to stocks and shares. As with most Tory schemes, it inevitably leads to widening inequality.

Triumph13

The most important thing is to ensure no-one in a monopoly position is able to abuse that. When companies are privatised it is essential that they are properly regulated to avoid market abuse. We can argue about how well various governments have managed that, but hopefully we can all agree that it is essential.
When a company is nationalised, the past experience in the UK has usually been that we end up handing over monopolistic powers to the trade unions. If there is no external threat to their employment because competition has been banned and the government has to keep subsidising them, then they have no vested interest in quality of service or efficiency. Their only interest is to have more employees being paid higher wages to do less work. Basic economics says you end up paying more for worse services - which anyone who can remember the 1970s will confirm.

[Deleted User]

Like most investments, some is from pensions and some is from extremely wealthy individuals. The latter would be affected more than any individual in the former group.

I really doubt that but the real question is “so?” You seem to be happy to punish millions of retirees as long as the “billionaires” are punished more. The ideology of envy in all its beauty.

it's the fact that these industries shouldn't be in private hands to begin with

That’s not a “fact”. That’s your ideologically driven uninformed opinion.

the common man already owned a stake in the companies because they were in public hands,

The common men in N Korea and. Venezuela are practically rolling in it, aren’t they?