Yeah, I'm such a ba5tard having saved up for my retirement having paid shitloads in tax at the same time
Absolutely, you're a monster.
on a serious note, whilst I wouldn't start from here, not sure how you rip it up and start again. Definitely need to look at corporate governance
That was in the other thread
As I said there, I don't know the intricacies of how to do it specifically, but the government needs to guarantee private pensions up to a certain amount, and then tax gains on the stock market and dividends at crazy sums. Make it a zero sum game except for under very strictly controlled circumstances around size of company, time limits, and so on.
on a serious note, whilst I wouldn't start from here, not sure how you rip it up and start again. Definitely need to look at corporate governance
That was in the other thread
As I said there, I don't know the intricacies of how to do it specifically, but the government needs to guarantee private pensions up to a certain amount, and then tax gains on the stock market and dividends at crazy sums. Make it a zero sum game except for under very strictly controlled circumstances around size of company, time limits, and so on.
Or you just make state pensions more generous but then that means everyone gets the same in retirement which may also not be seen as fair.
Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 9:49 am
on a serious note, whilst I wouldn't start from here, not sure how you rip it up and start again. Definitely need to look at corporate governance
That was in the other thread
As I said there, I don't know the intricacies of how to do it specifically, but the government needs to guarantee private pensions up to a certain amount, and then tax gains on the stock market and dividends at crazy sums. Make it a zero sum game except for under very strictly controlled circumstances around size of company, time limits, and so on.
Or you just make state pensions more generous but then that means everyone gets the same in retirement which may also not be seen as fair.
There are other ways to save for retirement...
But I do think the state pension should be increased anyway...that's another discussion, though.
canta_brian wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:02 pm
Heard a chap talking it about economic growth in America. Apparently the highest periods of growth coincide with high corporation tax. As high as 60%. The theory being that no company wants to pay that sort of tax on profits, so instead of doing so, they invest in longer term projects and pay their staff better. Imagine that! Better paid staff are more productive.
There was some research done by Corey Husak on tax in the US and growth. The basic summary is that tax levels made no difference to growth either way, but did have an effect on redistribution of wealth when talking about top rates of personal tax.
My view is that its hard to put growth down to one aspect alone; there are lots of factors why the US might grow or shrink and higher taxes in the US tend to be a lot lower than taxers in other countries, so perhaps better to look at impact where taxes are much higher?
As I said there, I don't know the intricacies of how to do it specifically, but the government needs to guarantee private pensions up to a certain amount, and then tax gains on the stock market and dividends at crazy sums. Make it a zero sum game except for under very strictly controlled circumstances around size of company, time limits, and so on.
Or you just make state pensions more generous but then that means everyone gets the same in retirement which may also not be seen as fair.
There are other ways to save for retirement...
But I do think the state pension should be increased anyway...that's another discussion, though.
Cash savings are a busted flush and I wouldnt invest directly in stocks and shares as an individual. Pensions are a good way to invest money for the future over the long term and should just be encouraged as too few take them seriously until its too late. The state pension alone isnt a great level of income and bank savings will run out pretty quickly. With finl salary schemes basically gone now expect for some very limited cases, it would have to be a water tight scheme to replace the current system without screwing a lot of people over.
Or you just make state pensions more generous but then that means everyone gets the same in retirement which may also not be seen as fair.
There are other ways to save for retirement...
But I do think the state pension should be increased anyway...that's another discussion, though.
Cash savings are a busted flush and I wouldnt invest directly in stocks and shares as an individual. Pensions are a good way to invest money for the future over the long term and should just be encouraged as too few take them seriously until its too late. The state pension alone isnt a great level of income and bank savings will run out pretty quickly. With finl salary schemes basically gone now expect for some very limited cases, it would have to be a water tight scheme to replace the current system without screwing a lot of people over.
For a better society, the current system needs killing, though. Companies should not be beholden to their stakeholders over both employees and the market. So, yes, an increase in state pension, drastically, will be needed, as well as alternative savings schemes.
canta_brian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:23 am
Genuine question. Was there ever a time when pensions were paid from the profits of just the company you worked for?
I believe that was the case some time ago. Larger companies would have had in-house pension schemes based on a final salary package. Many of these were scrapped as they became unaffordable.
The situation in this country now for many is that the employee pays a percentage of their salary and the company pays a percentage, often double. The administration and investment of that is managed by a third party. Benefit here is that all companies can now provide a pension rather than just the big players.
canta_brian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:23 am
Genuine question. Was there ever a time when pensions were paid from the profits of just the company you worked for?
I believe that was the case some time ago. Larger companies would have had in-house pension schemes based on a final salary package. Many of these were scrapped as they became unaffordable.
The situation in this country now for many is that the employee pays a percentage of their salary and the company pays a percentage, often double. The administration and investment of that is managed by a third party. Benefit here is that all companies can now provide a pension rather than just the big players.
yep, a lot of companies, like BT, have a massively unaffordable final salary scheme (with a massive black hole in it- they have to pump a lot of profit into that just to keep it just about alive) for millions and a parallel money purchase schemes with employer putting roughly double what the employer contributes.
I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.
canta_brian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:49 pm
I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.
A bit of a sticky wicket
There are many variations of pension funds though and you can switch between ethical, growth etc etc. But most funds must have a solid core of return on them by default- which fund you choose depends on your own attitude to risk- there will also be gilts in there.
canta_brian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:49 pm
I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.
A bit of a sticky wicket
There are many variations of pension funds though and you can switch between ethical, growth etc etc. But most funds must have a solid core of return on them by default- which fund you choose depends on your own attitude to risk- there will also be gilts in there.
canta_brian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:49 pm
I figured it must have been this sort of thing. I guess the issue now is that a lot of pension funds piggyback on the profits of a small number of very big companies. This in turn makes those companies too big to fail, which can’t really be good for competition and innovation. And when it’s the oil industry, it acts against environmental concerns.
A bit of a sticky wicket
It really depends. Most invest in a variety of markets and sectors to spread the risk. No doubt there are big companies in there but I think there are a variety of options. With Coop you could choose to be ethical for example and not invest in certain areas. Not sure most people are that bothered and just take an option based on the level of risk they wish to take.
There's always something to change the focus to. Past growth, projected growth. Every time GDP falls it means they can look forward to a big projected growth when the economy recovers again (even if the recovery is poor it will look big if the dip was deep enough). Johnson never got tired of saying how quickly our economy grew after covid but that was because it had contracted further than everyone else's (and still it has not completely recovered). What we need to look at are longer term charts with comparatives (just like in the video).
This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.
This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.
Puja
That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.
I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.
This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.
Puja
That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.
I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.
The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?
You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.
There is also the issue of economic migration and how that is managed across Europe since it's clearly a big draw from Africa and Asia to come to Europe. Again that needs to be sensible and something people can apply for before they get into an unsafe boat and try to cross the Med in the first place. Not every application for economic migration is going to be successful, but if there is a fair and transparent process for applying without leaving your own country, then the criminal gangs will be out of business.
This is excellent. A Tory MP asks Suella Bravermann a direct and simple question about our asylum system and doesn't allow her to deflect, bullshit, or obfuscate, and she flounders badly. Not even competent enough to defend the current system and yet she claims that she can "fix" it by making it more onerous. There's absolutely nothing to her - she's a Daily Mail headline incarnated into the body of a woman.
Puja
That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.
I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.
The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?
You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.
Puja
What a joy. On realising that her preferred policy of sending the hypothetical sixteen year old to Rwanda is an unacceptable answer to the question she asks if her flunkies have anything to add = could you answer the question for me, I'm incapable.
That is painful. She is utterly unable to openly state that, a small number of specific countries aside, there is no legal way to claim asylum in this country if you are fleeing persecution. Yet 75% of those who land in the UK via small boats are granted asylum on the basis that they are fleeing persecution.
I've said this before, the best way to prevent the dangerous trade in human cargo across the English Channel is to ensure that applications can be made outside of the UK that are then processed without delay. That would mean making an agreement with other European countries on how many asylum seekers we can take given the numbers who reach Europe as a whole. Our current system is forcing legitimate refugees into breaking the law.
The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?
You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.
Puja
What a joy. On realising that her preferred policy of sending the hypothetical sixteen year old to Rwanda is an unacceptable answer to the question she asks if her flunkies have anything to add = could you answer the question for me, I'm incapable.
And then Matthew Rycroft does his best Sir Humphrey impression to avoid admitting that there is no legal entry mechanism for such an individual.
The joy of being a civil servant and having to support something that's just bollocks.
The worst bit for me is when she confidently states the correct answer of "You would come to the UK and file an asylum claim as soon as you arrived," and then visibly has a moment of horrified revelation as she belatedly realises the trap that she's fallen into -that she's in danger of admitting that it's not actually illegal for an asylum seeker to enter the country and that she's persecuting them for her own political advantage. How could she be so stupid as to set herself up like that?
You are absolutely right about the solution. It also needs to be done as part of a grown-up intra-European conversation about who is taking asylum seekers and how best to cope with them, rather than letting them be political footballs to be demonised as an "invasion" whenever you need a boost in the polls. The current "system" of east/southward countries taking in their fill and then shuffling the excess on westwards is cruel and incompetent and rife with abuses and corruption, not to mention vulnerable to collapse whenever a country politically decides they're "full" or there's an event causing a larger flow of people.
Puja
What a joy. On realising that her preferred policy of sending the hypothetical sixteen year old to Rwanda is an unacceptable answer to the question she asks if her flunkies have anything to add = could you answer the question for me, I'm incapable.
And then Matthew Rycroft does his best Sir Humphrey impression to avoid admitting that there is no legal entry mechanism for such an individual.
The joy of being a civil servant and having to support something that's just bollocks.
I will take a moment to note that is it perfectly legal to get on a small boat or otherwise enter the UK without permission or documents, if you then claim for asylum when you arrive here. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, despite Bravermann and the press trying to cloud the issue. There *should* be better ways of making an asylum claim, but that method is not illegal.
