On Nov 29, 1:05 am, Andy Walker wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:
Gordon Brown's tax raid on the pension funds took place in 1997. Any
effect on you or anybody else at present is at worst marginal.

It *started* then. It seems to be impossible to find out how
the rather large sums raised have been divvied up among those of us
with pension pots, but my best guess is that it has cost me personally
at least #20000, perhaps #60000 or more. That may be marginal to you,
but it seems like quite a lot to me -- esp if you convert it to the
equivalent increase in [say] income tax.

Don't you start!

You're the mathematician not me! However, I reckon that the "Brown
raid" back in '97 has cost those who were in contribution based
schemes ~30% of their gross aggregated growth (not 30% of their pot)
so far if their individual plans had not matured. Such a figure has to
speculative of course because the investment policies of the
individual funds vary. My figure is estimated on an assumed average
return of 6% on a fund invested totally in equities.

Now a little about the context of my response. It was to a character
bent on being offensive, who, on reflection, had have been better
ignored.

Anyway he came up with this story that his "very low income" (alleged
to be subsidising the likes of me) was attributable to "Gordon nicked
a fair bit of my pension to pay you and the rest of the state
parasites" I couldn't let such a silly remark pass.

It occurred to be straight away that if he was a member of an
occupational pension scheme (as most pension schemes are) then it is
almost certain he was on final salary based benefit which would mean
that regardless of what Gordon did, he could be no worse off.

However, it's just possible that he subscribed to a private pension
plan (none of which offer the final salary option) in which case, as
we both agree, he would suffer some loss.

Thus this, to a degree hypothetical, question becomes whether this
loss (if indeed it applies) could make the difference between a
reasonable and a "very low" (his words) retirement income. I just
don't see how it could. If I'm wrong then its God help those who are
currently entering such schemes.


That's how he got his reputation for stealth taxation. The effects of his
actions in this respect are not really going to be felt until decades
have passed when he will be out of office and forgotten.

Well, the longer people work from 1997 before retiring [or until
the Raid is cancelled], then the more they will pay. But they won't
really notice, unless they look hard, because it simply means that their
pension pots will be much smaller than they should have been. As you
aren't told how big your pension pot will be, only what the guaranteed
[and v conservative] amount is, and not how big it could have been, it
really is a stealth tax. You never do know how much it has cost you.

This is of course true. In my view it is the most repressive action
this government has carried out since it came to power.

Whether it's "fair" or not, I don't pretend to know. I expect
Mr Brown would claim that his Raid corrects an anomaly in the way we
earn our pensions, while others would argue that he simply saw an easy
way to soak rich people in a way they wouldn't even notice.

I'm sure he would claim something of that sort.

The truth is he is politician first and a died in the wool socialist
second. As a politician he knows that his true political beliefs could
not get beyond a soap box oration on Speakers' Corner. As a socialist
he and his ilk are state corporatists. Pensions should be part of that
largesse.

He new better than to take on the unions by casting a jealous look at
the occupational pension schemes. As I have said they are all final
salary schemes anyway and milking them will not change that. As
regards the private schemes, most of the holders of those don't vote
Labour anyway.

You will further notice that the traditional occupational pension
scheme has gone into what seems to be terminal decline. The notion of
longevity has been coined to explain this but it won't be long before
some benevolent regime introduces a new retirement benefit to fill the
gap between state and private/occupational pension provision.

Paying benefits to and extracting tax from exactly the same people
seems to be a feature in the corporatist state.

Perhaps all money does ultimately belong to the government whose sole
raison d'etre is to redistribute it.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:31:35 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
wrote:

Gordon Brown's tax raid on the pension funds took place in 1997. Any
effect on you or anybody else at present is at worst marginal. That's
how he got his reputation for stealth taxation. The effects of his
actions in this respect are not really going to be felt until decades
have passed when he will be out of office and forgotten.

Complete tosh. His "raid on the pension funds" amounted to the
removal of tax relief on dividend payments. Its effects on a pension
fund, then, now or in the future are virtually none existent. Bad
pension fund management and movements in the market have effects many
magnitudes greater than any "raid on the pension funds"

If you were on average wages for the past decade and the pension fund
dividend tax credits from 1997 to today were paid as an annuity based
pension it would amount to a few 10's of pence a day.

Far more significant are the effects of Thatcher, her impact on UK
energy policy, wasting of energy reserves, dependence on foreign
powers for energy, foreign ownership of utilities and the decimation
of UK manufacturing.

Nearly ALL of the problems in the UK today are caused by Thatcher.

godwin
Gordon Brown is a saint by comparison - but then again so was Adolf
Hitler /godwin

Thatcher is an evil ****ing bitch. Someone should send her to
Afghanistan, stick her at one end of a minefield and tell her Dennis
is on the other side.


--

On 27 Nov, 21:47, Mike wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:20:53 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard

wrote:
I do most of my shopping at Sainsbury's and find their products, staff
and customer services are excellent.

You are the secret love child of the Sainsbury family AICMFP

Excellent and Sainsbury don't belong in the same universe let alone
the same sentence.

Manky bruised *mishandled vegetables and fruit, overpriced everything,
surly staff, endless queues at understaffed checkouts, crap car parks
with dingbat Nazi signage and hopeless traffic flows, litter strewn
car parks, with trolleys dumped all over, customer services that can't
answer a simple question but instead give you four different email
'replies'

In the world of food retail Sainsbury's are a prime example of how not
to do it and how to alienate your previously loyal customers. *I'd not
go there at all except its a complete pain in the ass to go to Tesco
or Waitrose.


Then you have local issues which need addressing. And if you have
evidence I'm the secret love child of Sainsbury's could you pass it to
me? I always knew I was meant to be wealthy and kept asking my mother
who my real father was. She used to suggest I try to catch a glimpse
of the coalman with his face washed.

Toom

On 29 Nov, 01:05, Andy Walker wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:
Gordon Brown's tax raid on the pension funds took place in 1997. Any
effect on you or anybody else at present is at worst marginal.

* * * * It *started* then. *It seems to be impossible to find out how
the rather large sums raised have been divvied up among those of us
with pension pots, but my best guess is that it has cost me personally
at least #20000, perhaps #60000 or more. *That may be marginal to you,
but it seems like quite a lot to me -- esp if you convert it to the
equivalent increase in [say] income tax.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * That's
how he got his reputation for stealth taxation. The effects of his
actions in this respect are not really going to be felt until decades
have passed when he will be out of office and forgotten.

* * * * Well, the longer people work from 1997 before retiring [or until
the Raid is cancelled], then the more they will pay. *But they won't
really notice, unless they look hard, because it simply means that their
pension pots will be much smaller than they should have been. *As you
aren't told how big your pension pot will be, only what the guaranteed
[and v conservative] amount is, and not how big it could have been, it
really is a stealth tax. *You never do know how much it has cost you.

* * * * Whether it's "fair" or not, I don't pretend to know. *I expect
Mr Brown would claim that his Raid corrects an anomaly in the way we
earn our pensions, while others would argue that he simply saw an easy
way to soak rich people in a way they wouldn't even notice.


The tax on pension schemes is, as you say, ongoing and was a removal
of tax relief on dividends - It apparently removes £5 billion pa from
pension funds, and with considerable volatility in the stock market,
contributes to a multi-billion pound deficit in many finally salary
schemes, hence the winding-up of many such schemes or their closure to
new entrants. Adjustment to final salary guarantees could well be seen
unless stockmarket performance clears the deficits.

Similarly, Brown taxed the dividends in supposed 'tax-free' equity
shares and ISAs which many people were using as a more flexible way of
saving for retirement, thus removing the main purpose and benefit of
them. Similarly, a low interest rate strategy which got us into the
whole credit mess, penalised cash savings since they lose value
against the real rate of inflation and are further penalised by tax on
the interest. This is further exacerbated by recent increases in
inflation and by lower interest rates. Shortly before Blair handed
over to our current wee pretendy unelected Prime Minister, the pair of
them announced that we all had to work longer and save more for our
old age!!! A suggestion somewhat at variance with Brown's practice of
penalising every effort of those who have already tried to do so.

It will shortly all become academic as sterling approaches parity with
the Zimbabwean dollar. Perhaps Brown has a cunning plan - a new
currency based on the value of turnips.

Toom

On 27 Nov, 21:47, Mike wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 02:20:53 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard

wrote:
I do most of my shopping at Sainsbury's and find their products, staff
and customer services are excellent.

You are the secret love child of the Sainsbury family AICMFP

Excellent and Sainsbury don't belong in the same universe let alone
the same sentence.

Manky bruised *mishandled vegetables and fruit, overpriced everything,
surly staff, endless queues at understaffed checkouts, crap car parks
with dingbat Nazi signage and hopeless traffic flows, litter strewn
car parks, with trolleys dumped all over, customer services that can't
answer a simple question but instead give you four different email
'replies'

In the world of food retail Sainsbury's are a prime example of how not
to do it and how to alienate your previously loyal customers. *I'd not
go there at all except its a complete pain in the ass to go to Tesco
or Waitrose.

--

The Delicatessen ast Sainsburys is (relatively) excellent. However
what did it for me was trailling round, week after week, and
discovering without fail the things we had gone for were always out of
stock. A trivial example was the Phileas Fogg Chilli Nachos. They
always had every other variety in, just not the Chilli (which was by
far and a way the largest shelf space). So they filled the shelves
with the other varieties (Which I unfilled, to show they were out of
stock :-) ). Because we tend to go shopping same day, same time, we
were able to catch the same manager week after week, so his "delivered
on Monday" spiel was quickly shown to be a lie. In the end, I went in
one day. Gave him my shopping list, and forced him to go round the
store to see of the 30 things on my list, they were not only out of
stock of the top 11 things, but had been for 5 weeks.

Started shopping at Morrisons ... less choice, but between 10 and 20
pounds a week cheaper

On 27 Nov, 20:14, "Craven Moorhead" wrote:
"Mel Rowing" wrote in message

...

Some people are very adept at passing their living costs onto somebody
else.

Most of benefits culture Britain, in fact.

Why should I (a married man with no children) have to pay to subsidise
people who've *chosen* to have children and who receieve capacious handouts
(tax credits, child benefits, etc etc)?

Someone *please* explain?

OK, have it your way. in 50 years time, when you're costing the NHS
100x what you paid into it, why should my children pay for you ?

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:54:50 -0800 (PST), Jethro
wrote:

Why should I (a married man with no children) have to pay to subsidise
people who've *chosen* to have children and who receieve capacious handouts
(tax credits, child benefits, etc etc)?

Someone *please* explain?

OK, have it your way. in 50 years time, when you're costing the NHS
100x what you paid into it, why should my children pay for you ?

Because whilst having children is a lifestyle choice, getting ill is
not.

If the PP decides that he would get greater pleasure from spending the
next 18 years restoring a vintage car instead of raising a child, why
should *that* choice not be subsidised?

Besides which, it is far from ceratin that the PP will require medical
care in excess of the amount he has paid into the NHS, let alone
needing 100x the amount. The cost of residential care needed in later
years will usually be clawed out of the person's savings and other
assets rather than using public funds.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:11:36 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
wrote:

On 27 Nov, 21:47, Mike wrote:

Excellent and Sainsbury don't belong in the same universe let alone
the same sentence.

Manky bruised *mishandled vegetables and fruit, overpriced everything,
surly staff, endless queues at understaffed checkouts, crap car parks
with dingbat Nazi signage and hopeless traffic flows, litter strewn
car parks, with trolleys dumped all over, customer services that can't
answer a simple question but instead give you four different email
'replies'

In the world of food retail Sainsbury's are a prime example of how not
to do it and how to alienate your previously loyal customers. *I'd not
go there at all except its a complete pain in the ass to go to Tesco
or Waitrose.


Then you have local issues which need addressing.

I think it was last Christmas when they sent out the board of
directors out to a number of stores to see life on the floor. By
chance the store in question was one of the ones on the list. Of
course that day no doubt the stock was top notch. They should go on a
secret shopper mission and really see the crap they put on display.

In the past week I've seen "white" button mushrooms darker than
chestnut ones, meat so manky that it was green, bread mangled so much
by bad handling it was falling apart and broccoli shipped all the way
from Spain so far past its sell by date even a pig would turn its nose
up at it.


--

"Cynic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:54:50 -0800 (PST), Jethro
wrote:

Why should I (a married man with no children) have to pay to subsidise
people who've *chosen* to have children and who receieve capacious
handouts
(tax credits, child benefits, etc etc)?

Someone *please* explain?

OK, have it your way. in 50 years time, when you're costing the NHS
100x what you paid into it, why should my children pay for you ?

Because whilst having children is a lifestyle choice, getting ill is
not.

If the PP decides that he would get greater pleasure from spending the
next 18 years restoring a vintage car instead of raising a child, why
should *that* choice not be subsidised?

Beacuse doing so brings no benefit to society. If there was no one of
working age in the country it would collapse.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:04:08 -0000, "Mr X" wrote:

If the PP decides that he would get greater pleasure from spending the
next 18 years restoring a vintage car instead of raising a child, why
should *that* choice not be subsidised?

Beacuse doing so brings no benefit to society. If there was no one of
working age in the country it would collapse.

It is a false view that more children must be produced in order to
support the outgoing generation. It is quality that is required, not
quantity. Many children will end up being unemployed or on minimum
wage for most of their lives, and end up taking more than they put in.

Unless you have 100% employment, it is wrong to assume that more
children are needed in order to supply the needs of society. If the
number of people of working age were to reduce by as much as 25%
tomorrow, we would have sufficient people to support the productivity
needs of the country whilst at the same time greatly reducing the
amount needed to support the unemployed.

Our population is too large, and it would be of benefit to reduce it.
I would say that "raising" a vintage car instead of a child *is*
therefore of overall benefit.

--
Cynic