New pension raid

[d000hg]

Mandatory work and no "benefits life" sounds both far more left-wing than we're used to, AND a great idea. Which is worrying when I don't really agree with left-wing philosophy.

[AtW]

Mandatory work and no "benefits life" sounds both far more left-wing than we're used to, AND a great idea. Which is worrying when I don't really agree with left-wing philosophy.

Politicians will say what people want to hear in order to get elected.

[d000hg]

So raiding pensions is just to gain popularity with the poor, they don't plan to do it?

[b0redom]

Your pension??!?!

Your money you put into pension (which may or may not be yours in the future) is used to pay up previous investors into Ponzi scheme. Even if you use your money to buy shares that helps them because pension funds are heavily influenced by stock market levels - if they fall then extra payments will need to be paid and they are so huge that could bankrupt companies behind many of those funds.

So, essentially the Govt's primary motivation in giving a "tax relief" is to maintain payments into the ponzi scheme because otherwise it can collapse now rather than in the future (which will be somebody elses problem).

Eh? Surely the Ponzi scheme only impacts the public sector pension pot. If you have a private pension it's invested into private companies (and maybe gilts and bonds) and used to buy an annuity when you retire (from a private insurance company who gamble you'll die before you've taken all the money).

With the exception of investment into gilts + bonds which will be repayed with interest anyway, I don't see how the government gets anything?

[AtW]

So raiding pensions is just to gain popularity with the poor, they don't plan to do it?

He will probably do it because from socialists point of view it's a winner anyway - if people continue to use pensions then he'll get the money, and if they choose to keep in the pocket then he'd get 45% tax (or 50% as they've promised to increase it), looks like a winner either way ... in their world!

In reality what will definately happen is reduction of pension payments, but he might find that amount of extra tax collected won't go up as he privately expects

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Instead of the usual emotional rhetoric, can you show me why my post was inaccurate? That is:

When have the Labour party left office without a large and growing deficit?

Have the Labour party got alternative viable plans for reducing the current deficit, remembering that they have opposed most of what the Coalition is doing about it?

Are the Coalition not in fact reducing the deficit?

I can't be bothered frankly - if you are just going to dismiss my opinion as "usual emotional rhetoric" I will treat your response with the same casual contempt. On the narrow points made, you may be correct - but (just as one small example), to hear some people talk, you'd have thought Labour inherited a massive surplus in 1997 - clue - they didn't, even after 18 years of Conservative economic miracles. To be clear - I am not saying Labour are/were any good, but believing the Tories are any better, whilst touching, is misguided.

[xoggoth]

This is probably balls even by the Balls's standard of balls. The BBC news pointed out a couple of flaws tonight:

1) Banks will just avoid bonus tax by paying more in salary and perks.
2) Unlikely the bonus tax and welfare cuts can fund these jobs. All costs to employers, including mentoring and supervision, do not appear to have been taken into account.

And what about the unsuitable ones that employers won't want even if the state does pays their wages?

[d000hg]

And what about the unsuitable ones that employers won't want even if the state does pays their wages?

Well in the USA they even get actual criminals to pick up litter from the side of the street...