Gordon Brown shows his contempt for British workers again
Crowley
basic state pension to be recommended in the Turner Report due out next
week as they are "unaffordable"..
He prefers to continue throwing benefits at layabouts, parasites, and
foreigners (New Labour voters) who have never contributed to the system
rather than pay a decent level of pension to those British workers who
have paid National Insurance contributions all their lives......
BBC 24th November
Brown 'to shelve' pensions plan
Gordon Brown believes pensions proposals to be published next week are
unaffordable, the BBC has learned.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson says a source has told him the
chancellor plans to "shelve" the Turner report.
Mr Brown is believed to oppose its suggestion the state pension age be
raised to 67 to pay for restoration of a link between pensions and
earnings.
mogga
wrote:
I believe part of their solution to the pensions crisis is this
winters big freeze plan where the gas'll go off and many pensioners
will simply die thus allieviating the problem.
--
Promotional codes, discounts, money off
http://www.promotionalcode.co.uk/
http://www.moneyoffvouchers.co.uk
Mark Williams
"Crowley" <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1132826464.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Brown 'to shelve' pensions plan
>
> Gordon Brown believes pensions proposals to be published next week are
> unaffordable, the BBC has learned.
> BBC political editor Nick Robinson says a source has told him the
> chancellor plans to "shelve" the Turner report.
>
> Mr Brown is believed to oppose its suggestion the state pension age be
> raised to 67 to pay for restoration of a link between pensions and
> earnings.
> http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4465652.stm
As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown will receive 50% of his pay from the
moment he leaves office, whether that is 55 or 75. His pension will rise in
line with the pay of future Chancellor's. He hasn't paid a penny in
contributions.
Magnus Paterson
news:4385aa48$0$82650$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:
> In article <1132826464.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Crowley" <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Mr Brown is believed to oppose its suggestion the state pension age be
>>raised to 67 to pay for restoration of a link between pensions and
>>earnings.
>>
>>http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4465652.stm
>>
>
> You can't make the public sector work until 67... leave that to the
> private sector to pick up the pieces for New Liebours mess, and have
> to pay / work longer for their own pensions and subsidise the public
> sector to retire at 60.
>
> Darius
Average public sector pension currently in payment is approximately
Ł4k pa. All government has currently agreed to is that staff in post
at present retain their pension age (*not* retirement age) of 60.
New entrants to the civil service at least (not sure about rest
of public sector) are already in a contributory scheme, as are many
existing civil servants, and a revised pensions system for the
civil service will mean a fully contributory scheme, with pension not
related to final salary, but to career average.
Crowley
mogga wrote:
> I believe part of their solution to the pensions crisis is this
> winters big freeze plan where the gas'll go off and many pensioners
> will simply die thus allieviating the problem.
Never a truer word spoken in jest as the Bard said and its a fact that
most of us would put nothing beyond this cynical government.
Brown stooge Ed Balls gave the game away making it clear that Browns
policy is to ensure that people who have contributed nothing to this
country; layabouts, scroungers, and even someone who has just arrived
here from another country will receive as much if not more from the
State in old age as every Briton who has worked here all their life and
paid into the system. .......
"...Labour MP Ed Balls, the chancellor's close ally and former chief
economic adviser, told the BBC that people needed a "sense of
perspective" and said it was not a case of rejecting the entire Turner
Report.
He said the report should spark a debate lasting months or years about
how the UK can best provide a "fair and affordable" pensions system.
The restoration of the pensions link to earnings had been rejected over
the past decade, in favour of the more affordable system of targeting
help at the poorest pensioners, he said..."
Alex
"Darius" <127....@localhost.com> wrote in message news:4385aa48$0$82650
> You can't make the public sector work until 67... leave that to the
private
> sector to pick up the pieces for New Liebours mess, and have to pay / work
> longer for their own pensions and subsidise the public sector to retire at
> 60.
You are confusing the state retirement age (which will be the same for
everyone) and occupational pension schemes' normal retirement age. Some
public sector schemes' NRA is 60 (though there's no reason why a private
sector scheme's couldn't also be 60 - if yours isn't, then fight to get it
improved rather than run down those that have 60), though as public sector
pay is demonstrably lower (average in local government about £13K a year, UK
average overall about £22K) a decent pension is regarded as deferred pay -
as another poster has pointed out, the average local government pension in
payment is between £4K and £5K a year, hardly massive.
Crowley
Alex wrote:
> ....as another poster has pointed out, the average local government pension in
> payment is between £4K and £5K a year, hardly massive.
Averages can be deceptive. That average local govt pension of £4/5k
includes many thousands of pensioners who only worked for local govt
for just a few years or part-time. Those who worked full-time for 20
years or more get considerably more than £4/5k pa.
h
>
>>
> "...Labour MP Ed (head the)Balls,
Ah!, that's more like it :-))
Gordon
>
>I believe part of their solution to the pensions crisis is this
>winters big freeze plan where the gas'll go off and many pensioners
>will simply die thus allieviating the problem.
>
today. I have some logs stacked up as well.....
--
Gordon Harris
pete
Don't forget bird flu .
Crowley
the pensions crisis continues to tick..........
Pensions reform in disarray
Benedict Brogan and Becky Barrow, Daily Mail
25 November 2005
LANDMARK reforms designed to solve the pensions crisis were in disarray
last night even before they were published.
Gordon Brown was accused of sabotaging the long-awaited Turner Report
by effectively declaring its proposals unaffordable. His views were
made clear in a leaked letter to the report's author Lord Turner just
six days ahead of publication.
The result was a day of confusion - and the overriding impression that
the Government was no closer to tackling the £60bn pensions black hole
than it was when it came to power eight years ago.
The Chancellor left Westminster in no doubt that he is unhappy with the
way Lord Turner has drafted his findings. Senior sources confirmed the
report would 'inform' a lengthy debate on the future of pensions - but
that its recommendations were likely to be ignored. They criticised
Lord Turner for exceeding his brief by making detailed suggestions
rather than offering a broad-brush blueprint for reform.
Mr Brown let it be known that one key element of Lord Turner's plans -
linking increases in the state pension to earnings rather than
inflation - would cost too much. He was backed by Tony Blair, who
declared that any reforms must be 'affordable'.
What emerged was a picture of a government shying away from difficult
solutions. Experts predict there is a shortfall of at least £60bn in
the pensions system, largely because of the growing number of
pensioners and the shrinking workforce.
But with the Government's finances looking increasingly delicate, the
Chancellor is uneasy about any solution that might require higher
taxes. He has made clear a decision on pensions will not be taken until
the next Parliament, in what could be his first term as Prime Minister.
Mr Brown reinforced the message in a speech to the Institute of
Directors last night, when he said he would only spend 'what we can
afford' on pensions.
Lord Turner, a former head of the CBI, is due to publish his report on
Wednesday. Recommendations are expected to include raising the
retirement age to 67, increasing the basic state pension from £80 to
£109 a week and linking it to earnings, and setting up a new national
savings plan for all workers.
The leak of a Treasury letter, and apparently aggressive briefings from
Mr Brown's key allies, brought accusations that the Chancellor was
attempting to intimidate Lord Turner into watering down his
conclusions.
Lord Turner himself is understood to be deeply angry at the way his
findings have been 'spun' in advance by the Government.
The intervention also appeared to be timed to pull the rug from under
John Hutton, the new Blairite Work and Pensions Secretary, who was
making his first speech on retirement policy. He echoed the call for
any change to be affordable.
'As the country ages, governments will face pressures to spend more on
pensions,' he said. 'We have an obligation to continue to manage public
expenditure prudently and responsibly. There will be no relaxation of
our fiscal discipline.'
Downing Street insisted Mr Blair had no intention of shelving the
report. A spokesman said the three principles that would inform pension
reform were that changes must be 'fair, affordable and that they do
something to encourage people to save more'.
But opposition politicians were scathing about the day's events. Shadow
Chancellor George Osborne said: 'To sabotage the Turner report in this
way is disgraceful. Why has the Government promised a serious "grown
up" debate on the future of pension provision, only for the Chancellor
to throw his toys out of the pram in this way?
mogga
wrote:
>
>mogga wrote:
>> I believe part of their solution to the pensions crisis is this
>> winters big freeze plan where the gas'll go off and many pensioners
>> will simply die thus allieviating the problem.
>
>Never a truer word spoken in jest as the Bard said and its a fact that
>most of us would put nothing beyond this cynical government.
Jest? No I'm naturally cynical.
Apparently one of brown's brothers works for the bbc and one for some
french nuclear place.
Poldie
Crowley wrote:
> Leaks today shows that Brown will reject proposals to increase the
> basic state pension to be recommended in the Turner Report due out next
> week as they are "unaffordable"..
You'd rather a system which was `unaffordable`? How would that benefit
British workers?
Andy Pandy
"Poldie" <Pol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132929929.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
They are only "unaffordable" according to Brown. I presume Turner and co did
actually look into the cost of their recommendations.
If the recommendations are as I've seen before - a Citizen's pension of the MIG
level (about £109 a week), payable to everyone regardless of NI contributions,
increasing in line with earnings, payable from 67, and abolition SERPS/S2P, then
it's not likely to cost much at all, in fact it may even save money.
Those at the bottom end won't benefit at all, since they'd get the MIG anyway
which already increases in line with earnings. In fact they'd lose as the
pension would start getting paid later.
Those on average earnings and above would probably be worse off, as they'd lose
out on SERPS/S2P/contracted out rebates which would likely be more than the
extra basic pension they'd get.
Even people on low incomes could be worse off, as S2P is quite generous to low
earners - under the *current* S2P rules someone with a full working life earning
under £12,000 in today's terms would get about £60 pw in S2P, compared to an
extra about £27 under the Citizen's pension. The same would apply to eligible
carers, who get treated the same as low earners.
However a Citizen's pension *without* abolishing SERPS/S2P would be very
costly...
--
Andy
Tim
> If the recommendations are as I've seen
> ...
> However a Citizen's pension *without*
> abolishing SERPS/S2P would be very costly...
If they abolished SERPS/S2P, then wouldn't they need to reduce NI conts to
compensate?
If they did abolish SERPS/S2P and reduce NI, how do the figures then stack
up?
Andy Pandy
"Tim" <m...@home.uk> wrote in message
news:dm9di0$ku2$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > If the recommendations are as I've seen
> > before - ... abolition SERPS/S2P ...
> > ...
> > However a Citizen's pension *without*
> > abolishing SERPS/S2P would be very costly...
>
> If they abolished SERPS/S2P, then wouldn't they need to reduce NI conts to
> compensate?
Need to? The government can do what they like with NI rates. They increased the
rates a couple of years ago with no increase in any benefits derived from NI
conts.
Politically, they'd probably argue that the rates would stay the same because
they are replacing SERPS/S2P with a much more generous basic pension.
> If they did abolish SERPS/S2P and reduce NI, how do the figures then stack
> up?
Then they'd need to find a lot of extra money from somewhere to fund the more
generous basic pension. Sounds very costly.
--
Andy
Tim
> > > If the recommendations are as I've seen
> > > before - ... abolition SERPS/S2P ...
> > > ...
> > > However a Citizen's pension *without*
> > > abolishing SERPS/S2P would be very costly...
> >
> > If they abolished SERPS/S2P, then wouldn't
> > they need to reduce NI conts to compensate?
>
> Need to?
For "need", read "be pressured" ;-)
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> The government can do what they like with NI rates.
Of course they can, but then it is more and more just another *tax* - which
the govt seem very keen to say that NI isn't!
["We promised not to increase tax rates, and haven't." ... "But you
increased NI!" ... "Ah, but NI isn't a tax...".]
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Politically, they'd probably argue that the rates would stay the same
because
> they are replacing SERPS/S2P with a much more generous basic pension.
That's not 'like-for-like' -- NI varies with earnings (like SERPS/S2P), but
basic pension does not.
People would be paying different contributions for the same pension!
> "Tim" wrote
> > If they did abolish SERPS/S2P and reduce
> > NI, how do the figures then stack up?
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> Then they'd need to find a lot of extra money from somewhere
> to fund the more generous basic pension. Sounds very costly.
Exactly!
Andy Pandy
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Politically, they'd probably argue that the rates would stay the same
> because
> > they are replacing SERPS/S2P with a much more generous basic pension.
>
> That's not 'like-for-like' -- NI varies with earnings (like SERPS/S2P), but
> basic pension does not.
>
> People would be paying different contributions for the same pension!
Yes, but that's not exactly a new concept, the majority of contributory benefits
which depend on your NI record are paid flat rate. You get the same JSA whether
you previously earned £4,500 or £45,000.
In fact, under *current* S2P rules, someone earning £4,500 would get the same
S2P as someone earning £12,000.
--
Andy
Tim
> > > Politically, they'd probably argue that the rates would
> > > stay the same because they are replacing SERPS/S2P
> > > with a much more generous basic pension.
> >
> > That's not 'like-for-like' -- NI varies with earnings
> > (like SERPS/S2P), but basic pension does not.
> >
> > People would be paying different contributions for the same pension!
>
> Yes, but that's not exactly a new concept, the majority of contributory
> benefits which depend on your NI record are paid flat rate.
But how would they explain the effective "percentage increase in tax paid" -
ie that part of NI contributions which previously funded SERPS/S2P, which
are still being collected?
It would be very plain to those that had been "contracted-out" into an
approved personal pension - suddenly, they'd still be paying the same NI but
would not receive the percentage rebates back...
Also, how would you deal with people currently contracted-out in an
occupational scheme, who currently pay lower NI contributions?
Andy Pandy
> > > People would be paying different contributions for the same pension!
> >
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > Yes, but that's not exactly a new concept, the majority of contributory
> > benefits which depend on your NI record are paid flat rate.
>
> But how would they explain the effective "percentage increase in tax paid" -
> ie that part of NI contributions which previously funded SERPS/S2P, which
> are still being collected?
They wouldn't - it'd be a concept that passes over most peoples' heads. They've
already done it anyway, to a lesser extent, when SERPS replaced S2P.
> It would be very plain to those that had been "contracted-out" into an
> approved personal pension - suddenly, they'd still be paying the same NI but
> would not receive the percentage rebates back...
I think this is the main reason the govt probably won't do it - because it'd
grind final salary occupational pensions further into the ground (as they get
the biggest rebates currently).
> Also, how would you deal with people currently contracted-out in an
> occupational scheme, who currently pay lower NI contributions?
They'd lose the contracted out rebate.
--
Andy
Tim
> ... it'd grind final salary occupational pensions further
> into the ground (as they get the biggest rebates currently).
Eh? - FS schemes receiving rebates?
After the members have paid lower NI??
They pay less and get more benefits???!!
> "Tim" wrote
> > Also, how would you deal with people currently
> > contracted-out in an occupational scheme,
> > who currently pay lower NI contributions?
>
"Andy Pandy" wrote
> They'd lose the contracted out rebate.
But they don't get rebates (that's a MAPP/COMP) - they (currently) pay lower
NI instead...
Do you mean that you'd increase their NI contributions, without any increase
in benefits?
Andy Pandy
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > ... it'd grind final salary occupational pensions further
> > into the ground (as they get the biggest rebates currently).
>
> Eh? - FS schemes receiving rebates?
> After the members have paid lower NI??
>
> They pay less and get more benefits???!!
FS schemes get a 3.5% employer's NI rebate and a 1.6% employees NI rebate. Money
purchase schemes only get a 1% employer's NI rebate.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > Also, how would you deal with people currently
> > > contracted-out in an occupational scheme,
> > > who currently pay lower NI contributions?
> >
>
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > They'd lose the contracted out rebate.
>
> But they don't get rebates (that's a MAPP/COMP) - they (currently) pay lower
> NI instead...
They do get a rebate, as defined in the link above. Though the rebate is in
their pay not the pension, the result is less net NI payable and the rebate is
not shown seperately, but it's still a rebate. The 1.6% rebate is actually on
earnings between the LEL (£82pw) and UEL, whereas NI doesn't become payable till
you get to the PT (£94). So you can get negative NI I think.
> Do you mean that you'd increase their NI contributions, without any increase
> in benefits?
Me? It's not my proposal, it's been floated for some time. I can see it being
very tempting for the govt - it's an apparent increase in the BSP, restoration
of the earnings link, it will be of benefit to mainly women, it will give higher
BSP to the lowest earners without actually costing that much (as in many cases
it'll simply replace means testing), and it'll be simple. Transition could be
handled fairly simply to. See:
http://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/news.asp?p=71&s=5&a=0
--
Andy
Tim
> > > > Also, how would you deal with people currently
> > > > contracted-out in an occupational scheme,
> > > > who currently pay lower NI contributions?
> >
> > "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > > They'd lose the contracted out rebate.
> >
> > But they don't get rebates (that's a MAPP/COMP) -
> > they (currently) pay lower NI instead...
> >
> > contributions, without any increase in benefits?
>
> ... I can see it being very tempting for the govt ...
Of course - instead of the govt raising the money to pay for the extra
benefits from taxation, they'll raise the money by ... ermmmm ... taxation,
but just call it NI.
[The money raised from the tax we call NI - which used to fund SERPS/S2P -
will begin to fund the new basic pension instead.]
What they should really do is "rename" NI, and tell us what it really is -
TAX!
Andy Pandy
> "Andy Pandy" wrote
> > ... I can see it being very tempting for the govt ...
>
> Of course - instead of the govt raising the money to pay for the extra
> benefits from taxation, they'll raise the money by ... ermmmm ... taxation,
> but just call it NI.
> [The money raised from the tax we call NI - which used to fund SERPS/S2P -
> will begin to fund the new basic pension instead.]
>
> What they should really do is "rename" NI, and tell us what it really is -
> TAX!
Well in recent decades that's (almost) exactly what it has been. It bears far
more relation to a tax than to an "insurance".
--
Andy
Chris Malcolm
> But opposition politicians were scathing about the day's events. Shadow
> Chancellor George Osborne said: 'To sabotage the Turner report in this
> way is disgraceful. Why has the Government promised a serious "grown
> up" debate on the future of pension provision, only for the Chancellor
> to throw his toys out of the pram in this way?
I's like to step back from the current debate about "how can we get
out of this mess?" and consider how we got into it.
It seems to me that there would be no problem now if the monies that
pensioners had paid into what they thought were pension schemes had
simply gone into an appropriately cared for pot. Today they would more
than finance the necessary pensions. The problem has arisen because
someone had the bright idea of borrowing from this pot, because the
money wouldn't be needed for a long time, and put the money back
later. Unfortunately that scheme came unstuck because it depended on
certain rather more optimistic assumptions about the future economy,
demographics, etc., than simply leaving the money in the pension pot.
In short they lifted some of the money, taking the risk that they'd
easily be able to pay it back. Ooops!
Am I right in thinking that this is what happened?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Tim
> It seems to me that there would be no problem now if the monies that
> pensioners had paid into what they thought were pension schemes had
> simply gone into an appropriately cared for pot. Today they would more
> than finance the necessary pensions. The problem has arisen because
> someone had the bright idea of borrowing from this pot, because the
> money wouldn't be needed for a long time, and put the money back
> later. Unfortunately that scheme came unstuck because it depended on
> certain rather more optimistic assumptions about the future economy,
> demographics, etc., than simply leaving the money in the pension pot.
>
> In short they lifted some of the money, taking the
> risk that they'd easily be able to pay it back. Ooops!
>
> Am I right in thinking that this is what happened?
No. State pensions have always been "pay as you go".
Crowley
I don't think he's talking about the state pension but private company
pension schemes, and its certainly the case that some 'pension pots'
have been 'raided' in the past never to be restored. ( the most
notorious case was the Mirror fund stolen by the late unlamented Robert
Maxwell)
Its also the case that many companies were allowed to take 'pension
holidays' for several years, ie they did'nt pay their share of the
pension contributions into the fund because booming share prices meant
there was a surplus. When shares crashed the surplus rapidly turned
into a deficit.
Last but not least lets not forget Chancellor Browns annual take of £5
billion from pension funds since he scrapped tax credits in 1997.
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=22
M Holmes
> In uk.finance Crowley <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I's like to step back from the current debate about "how can we get
> out of this mess?" and consider how we got into it.
> It seems to me that there would be no problem now if the monies that
> pensioners had paid into what they thought were pension schemes had
> simply gone into an appropriately cared for pot. Today they would more
> than finance the necessary pensions. The problem has arisen because
> someone had the bright idea of borrowing from this pot, because the
> money wouldn't be needed for a long time, and put the money back
> later. Unfortunately that scheme came unstuck because it depended on
> certain rather more optimistic assumptions about the future economy,
> demographics, etc., than simply leaving the money in the pension pot.
> In short they lifted some of the money, taking the risk that they'd
> easily be able to pay it back. Ooops!
> Am I right in thinking that this is what happened?
Yup. The sundry agents of the state stole the money and spent it on
sweeties for their voters.
In any normal world, we'd be arresting them all for running a Ponzi
scheme by now, but They write the laws and so that's not gonna happen.
What *should* happen though is that all those folks who've earned the
right to retire at sixty or have an inflation indexed pension or
whatever should have those contracts honoured. In the most part they
took lower pay that was available in the private sector, and did without
company cars etcetera precisely because of the pnsion arrangements. If
you like, they agreed to defer a large part of their salary.
This should be done by the state quitting a lot of the businesses that
it runs from badly to awfully; selling off the assets such as land and
buildings; opening private pensions for those owed; and filling them
with the cash necessary to return the agreed pension.
FoFP
M Holmes
> Its also the case that many companies were allowed to take 'pension
> holidays' for several years, ie they did'nt pay their share of the
> pension contributions into the fund because booming share prices meant
> there was a surplus. When shares crashed the surplus rapidly turned
> into a deficit.
There were those of us who predicted that this would lead to problems
when the bust inevitably followed the bubble. IMHO all the cash given in
pension holidays should be repaid to the funds with interest, issuing
cash calls to shareholders as necessary.
> Last but not least lets not forget Chancellor Browns annual take of 5
> billion from pension funds since he scrapped tax credits in 1997.
Certainly this makes him a main architect of the disaster, and yet there
are witless fools out there crying for him to run the country.
FoFP
Tumbleweed
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmpqr7$6ga$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> In uk.finance Crowley <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But opposition politicians were scathing about the day's events. Shadow
>> Chancellor George Osborne said: 'To sabotage the Turner report in this
>> way is disgraceful. Why has the Government promised a serious "grown
>> up" debate on the future of pension provision, only for the Chancellor
>> to throw his toys out of the pram in this way?
>
> I's like to step back from the current debate about "how can we get
> out of this mess?" and consider how we got into it.
>
> It seems to me that there would be no problem now if the monies that
> pensioners had paid into what they thought were pension schemes had
> simply gone into an appropriately cared for pot. Today they would more
> than finance the necessary pensions. The problem has arisen because
> someone had the bright idea of borrowing from this pot, because the
> money wouldn't be needed for a long time, and put the money back
> later. Unfortunately that scheme came unstuck because it depended on
> certain rather more optimistic assumptions about the future economy,
> demographics, etc., than simply leaving the money in the pension pot.
>
> In short they lifted some of the money, taking the risk that they'd
> easily be able to pay it back. Ooops!
>
> Am I right in thinking that this is what happened?
>
No, payments from todays contributions have always been used to finance
todays pensions, rather than the pensions of those making the contributions.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
M Holmes
>> In short they lifted some of the money, taking the risk that they'd
>> easily be able to pay it back. Ooops!
>> Am I right in thinking that this is what happened?
> No, payments from todays contributions have always been used to
> finance todays pensions, rather than the pensions of those making the
> contributions.
Somehow that excuse didn't play well in Court in the Savings and Loans
scandals. It seems strange that we accept it from politicians who stole
our money.
FoFP
Ronald Raygun
> What *should* happen though is that all those folks who've earned the
> right to retire at sixty or have an inflation indexed pension or
> whatever should have those contracts honoured.
The way you say "what should happen" sounds like you think it's not
going to happen. Isn't it?
> In the most part they
> took lower pay that was available in the private sector, and did without
> company cars etcetera precisely because of the pnsion arrangements. If
> you like, they agreed to defer a large part of their salary.
Quite.
> This should be done by the state quitting a lot of the businesses that
> it runs from badly to awfully;
Like universities?
M Holmes
> M Holmes wrote:
>> What *should* happen though is that all those folks who've earned the
>> right to retire at sixty or have an inflation indexed pension or
>> whatever should have those contracts honoured.
> The way you say "what should happen" sounds like you think it's not
> going to happen. Isn't it?
My bet: no, it isn't. Politicians have the power to write Law and to
print ersatz money. Between those two, its pretty easy for them to
renege on their obligations when the Piper demands to be paid.
>> In the most part they
>> took lower pay that was available in the private sector, and did without
>> company cars etcetera precisely because of the pnsion arrangements. If
>> you like, they agreed to defer a large part of their salary.
> Quite.
>> This should be done by the state quitting a lot of the businesses that
>> it runs from badly to awfully;
> Like universities?
A very good example, yes.
FoFP
--
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four [Kipling]
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
Steve Firth
National Insurance has always been a giant Ponzi scheme and would have
been illegal if anyone other than the government had set it up.
Crowley
dave wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2005 08:20:50 -0800, "Crowley" <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Last but not least lets not forget Chancellor Browns annual take of £5
> >billion from pension funds
> >
> interested to know, basically, how?
When New Labour got in in 1997 Chancellor Brown wasted no time in
scrapping the established system of tax credits on dividends from
shares held by pension schemes amounting to about £5 billion annually.
Mikein...@aol.com
return on pension funds by about three-quarters of a per cent. Does not
sound a lot but compounded over a working life it makes a huge
difference to the eventual fund available to pay pensions. Looking at
compund interest tables is instructive for anyone who has not done so!
Tim
> >> No, payments from todays contributions have
> >> always been used to finance todays pensions, rather
> >> than the pensions of those making the contributions.
> >
> > Somehow that excuse didn't play well in Court in the
> > Savings and Loans scandals. It seems strange that
> > we accept it from politicians who stole our money.
Do you also complain when they "steal" your income tax?
The VAT you pay when buying goods/services? etc etc
"Steve Firth" wrote
> National Insurance has always been a giant Ponzi scheme and would
> have been illegal if anyone other than the government had set it up.
That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only the government are allowed to
impose taxes!
Tim
> I don't think he's talking about the state pension but
> private company pension schemes, and its certainly the
> case that some 'pension pots' have been 'raided' in the past
> never to be restored. ( the most notorious case was the
> Mirror fund stolen by the late unlamented Robert Maxwell)
That was fraud, and cases of fraudulently "raiding" pensions are very few &
far between.
How many "pension pots" do you think have been *legally* "raided" ?
"Crowley" wrote
> Its also the case that many companies were allowed to
> take 'pension holidays' for several years, ie they did'nt
> pay their share of the pension contributions into the fund
> because booming share prices meant there was a surplus.
Don't blame the companies - blame the legislators who imposed extra taxes on
the pension funds if their surplus exceeded certain levels!
"Crowley" wrote
> When shares crashed the surplus rapidly turned into a deficit.
True. That was the big failure of the tax system - taxing "excess
surpluses", which were required for later falls...
Steve Firth
>>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>>>> No, payments from todays contributions have
>>>> always been used to finance todays pensions, rather
>>>> than the pensions of those making the contributions.
>> M Holmes wrote:
>>> Somehow that excuse didn't play well in Court in the
>>> Savings and Loans scandals. It seems strange that
>>> we accept it from politicians who stole our money.
>
> Do you also complain when they "steal" your income tax?
> The VAT you pay when buying goods/services? etc etc
Yes, money extracted under threat. It's extortion and theft.
> "Steve Firth" wrote
>> National Insurance has always been a giant Ponzi scheme and would
>> have been illegal if anyone other than the government had set it up.
>
> That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only the government are allowed to
> impose taxes!
You dumb arse, do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is?
Crowley
Ponzi schemes, pyramid selling and other financial scams seem to be
proliferating in recent years.
"Ponzi" Schemes
Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles
Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a
postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. Ponzi thought he
could take advantage of differences between U.S. and foreign currencies
used to buy and sell international mail coupons. Ponzi told investors
that he could provide a 40% return in just 90 days compared with 5% for
bank savings accounts. Ponzi was deluged with funds from investors,
taking in $1 million during one three-hour period-and this was 1921!
Though a few early investors were paid off to make the scheme look
legitimate, an investigation found that Ponzi had only purchased about
$30 worth of the international mail coupons.
Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the
"rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" principle, as money from new investors is used
to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm
Tim
> >> National Insurance has always been a giant Ponzi scheme and would
> >> have been illegal if anyone other than the government had set it up.
> >
> > That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only
> > the government are allowed to impose taxes!
>
> You dumb arse...
Charming! (not)
"Steve Firth" wrote
> ... do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is?
Of course I do. What a clever man Mr Ponzi was, eh?!
But what has that got to do with NI?
NI is a tax, just like income tax.
State pension is a benefit, just like unemployment benefit etc.
Do you think that other tax-funded benefits (as well
as state pensions) also constitute Ponzi schemes?
Steve Firth
>>> "Steve Firth" wrote
>>>> National Insurance has always been a giant Ponzi scheme and would
>>>> have been illegal if anyone other than the government had set it up.
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only
>>> the government are allowed to impose taxes!
> "Steve Firth" wrote
>> You dumb arse...
>
> Charming! (not)
Act like a dumb arse, get called a dumb arse.
> "Steve Firth" wrote
>> ... do you even know what a Ponzi scheme is?
>
> Of course I do. What a clever man Mr Ponzi was, eh?!
> But what has that got to do with NI?
>
> NI is a tax, just like income tax.
I see you have swallowed government propaganda, hook line and sinker.
They may treat NI as "just another tax" but that is not how it was sold
to the electorate. Hence the name National Insurance.
> State pension is a benefit, just like unemployment benefit etc.
>
> Do you think that other tax-funded benefits (as well
> as state pensions) also constitute Ponzi schemes?
The benefit system is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, but NI is in
it's very concept a Ponzi scheme. Current investors give money which is
used to make unrealistic payments to current benefactors. It always was
unsustainable, and was sustainable in the (relatively) short term as
long as the population explosion continued to explode and old people
died conveniently close to their 65th birthday.
As soon as the population stabilised, and longevity improved, the scheme
was doomed to fail and it has.
Yankee Doodle Refugee
BENJAMIN SHALOM BERNANKE, our new Fed Reserve Chairman, will he fix
the trillions $$$$ debt to China/Asia, and spontaneously generate new
magic bullet T-bonds for our Treasury!?? ....click here to see how
Fannie Mae home loan mortgages work against the US public with the
collusion of the U.S. Treasury, and how together they have gutted our
nation like a megalomaniac Bonnie & Clyde ... this strategy goes by the
name of "CARRYING TRADE," which means foreigners can borrow at cheap
rates in the United States and pump the proceeds into China.
Here is how it works! FANNIE MAE, did you know that Fannie Mae is the
richest and most powerful dispenser of money than any U.S. commerical
bank, besides Citibank, its sole superior? Fannie Mae doles out
trillions in home loans which are tied into U.S. tax dollars & the US
Treasury. This includes muy MUCHO bad home loans to illegal immigrants
-- just check out Bank of America records or hang out in a Latino
neighborhood bank branch and listen in if you can speak Spanish. When
this TRILLIONS goes SPLIFF!, where is the cash to back it up? It has
all disappeared without a trace same as our pension funds!
Our US Treasury will be under much pressure to owe up somehow at the
time of the meltdown which will come at the same time that the Chinese
Dragon starts to fly to Mars and soars the skies above our heads --
making a laughing stock of our National Reconnaissance Organization spy
satellites -- and leaving us behind financially, culturally, and
materialistically, like an overextended 7-11 store chock full o'Minnie
mouses!
CHINA -- The Chinese have been long buying up the vast bulk of our
T-bonds. Our CEOs and our Federal Reserve and our Congress have BEEN
ALL FOR IT! The Japanese yen and the British pound are not pegged to
our dollar like the Chinese yuan, so don't get your panties in a twist
fretting over the Japanese and British small island nations holding
some of our T-bonds.
The Chinese have been raking in money from this CARRYING TRADE deal and
are making a killing off of the interest we must pay them. In a
parallel universe, the Communist Chinese [suddenly in the last decade
at least] are brilliant venture capitalists and have their own mirror
image T-bond structure in their bloated Treasury, looking a lot unlike
our thin Lizzy! They got all of Europe and most of the world buying up
their own T-bonds like hot dogs on Coney Island. Funny thing is, almost
not even one Chinese elite will touch their own Chinese T-bonds. They
don't buy them! They know why! It's time for you readers to get hip
too!
Thus, funny money in our Treasury is backing up the growth of illegal
immigrant housing in the US and also the most powerful boom in China
not seen since the building of the Great Pyramids in ancient Egypt! We
are the sad losers, wasting away our very short and desperately needed
time to defeat an illusory monster in the sand dunes and Gulfs of
ancient Babylon, and doing next to nothing for our Gulf Coast wounded
here at home!
Why are we helping undocumented aliens in the USA to buy homes and cars
and SUVs and giving away our assets to the booming Chinese economy, who
today as a middle class live better than our middle class in the USA,
especially better than the dissed and neglected displaced denizens of
New Orleans. We have produced a surplus of native born PhDs in science
and engineering right here at home, for over a decade or two, and yet
our lawyers and Senators have been doling out H1-B visas to alien
scientists and engineers!
Our exports are laughable compared to Germany ... thus, do we have any
real money left in our Treasury that has not been spent on contractors
such as Halliburton and Wackenhut and KBG and Caryle Group and USIS,
just to mention a few of the insiders, with no bid contracts awash over
in Afghanistan and Iraq for these parasites. I don't think so. Prove me
wrong, make my day. When even our own unions do NOTHING to help African
Americans nor blue collar workers nor our rapidly shrinking and
vanishing middle class to stay afloat and to train to keep abreast of
new technologies, when these impotent and supplicating and feather
lined union managers can only reach out like beggars to help ONLY
illegal immigrants to organize and strike against Big Business abuses,
and not organize and assist us legals, we are in need of some new
founding fathers and a new and bolder drum and fife corps! Lace up your
boots and pump up the volume! Make some music and make yourself heard!
Crowley
Its Browns pre-budget report this week. Watch out for the excuses,
weasel words, and blaming of scapegoats. He has a £10 billion 'black
hole' to fill and I wonder if we will get any hints as to where he
plans to raise this from ?
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/03122005/17/brown-looks-set-tighten-taxation-net.html
Brown looks set to tighten the taxation net
3rd Dec
IT IS all go on the personal finance front. After a week in which Lord
Turner unveiled his long-awaited pensions report, the Chancellor will
stand up to deliver his first pre-budget report since Labour's third
general election victory.
This report has become increasingly significant, providing an insight
into many of the legislative changes to be introduced in the Finance
Bill presented to parliament following the spring Budget.
But, following the election win and the lowest economic growth in more
than a decade, Gordon Brown is likely to come bearing few gifts on
Monday. With public spending - particularly in the arenas of education
and health - set to surge and the Treasury's rather optimistic
projections of tax revenues, on the basis of current forecasts,
unlikely to be met, money-spinning measures are in the offing.
Previous Budgets have already seen Brown introduce many of the easiest
tax-raising measures to help him meet his "golden rule" and balance the
public books. So, there are fewer options this time round.
Tax experts believe many employees could be hit by a form of stealth
tax, while other targets could be alcohol and vehicle excise duty, as
well as tax avoidance.
"Although the Chancellor would like to deny it, the Treasury purse is
looking decidedly depleted," says Mike McCusker, tax partner at Grant
Thornton. "Given the current uncertain economic climate, dramatic tax
increases can be ruled out since Brown will not wish to further dampen
consumer spending.
"However, he will be bent on raising additional revenue. Freezing
allowances - known as fiscal drag - is likely to play an important
role."
Fiscal Drag
THE pre-budget report could create a new breed of "super taxpayers". By
freezing allowances, Brown will drag more people into the higher tax
bracket: many of Britain's young families could end up with a marginal
tax rate of up to 78 per cent (40 per cent income tax, 37 per cent tax
credit and 1 per cent national insurance).
"Ironically, these are the people that Brown claims to be so focused on
helping, but where's the incentive for them to work longer hours or to
gain a promotion, if any additional earnings are going to be taxed at
such a high rate?" asks McCusker.
For example, a single parent earning £37,500 with a family of two
claiming the maximum childcare element of the working tax credit
currently pays £6,959.20 in income tax, £3,113.32 in National
Insurance and gains £6,776.40 in working and child tax credits. If
they receive a pay rise of £2,500, they pay income tax of £7,959.20,
suffer £3,138.32 in National Insurance and receive £5,851.40 in tax
credits - so only keep £550 of their £2,500 pay increase.
National Insurance Contributions
CURRENTLY, employees pay National Insurance through the PAYE system of
11 per cent on earnings between the nil-rate band of £408 per month
and the upper limit of £2,730 a month, with earnings above that being
subject to a residual 1 per cent charge.
Changing National Insurance Contributions could be an "easy win" for
Brown and politically astute move: as the contributions are are not
officially classed as a tax, Brown could still claim he had not raised
taxes.
MacIntyre Hudson believes the Chancellor will increase the 1 per cent
charge applicable above the upper limit to 2 per cent.
"The government is tied to its election pledge of no increase to the
basic rate of income tax. However, with the Budget deficit in mind, he
could look to target middle-to-higher earners through an increase in
the residual charge," says tax principal Victor Dauppe.
Inheritance Tax
ALTHOUGH the Chancellor increased the threshold of inheritance tax to
£275,000, rising to £285,000 in 2006 and £300,000 in 2007, in his
last Budget, a consultation on wholesale reform of this penal tax could
be on the cards.
Despite widespread concern about the number of estates falling into the
net, Brown is likely to be unwilling to relinquish this growing tax
yield. But he might seek to appease Middle Britain.
Capital Gains Tax
NON-RESIDENT investors in UK property might be hit by capital gains tax
(CGT) on UK property sales. Given that CGT is levied on property in
most other countries in Europe, regardless of the residence of the
investor, Brown would be able to justify this.
Booze Duty
AN INCREASE in alcohol duty is also in the offing; as much as 10p on a
pint on beer and 50p per bottle of wine. Given the introduction of new
licensing laws and a "crackdown" on binge drinking, Brown could claim
it would help solve "social problems".
Vehicle Excise Duty
AS THE UK struggles to meet its CO2 emissions targets, the government
could gain revenue under the guise of reducing these via an additional
band for vehicle excise duty. The top of the current six bands applies
to cars producing more than 185 grams per kilometre, hitting almost
every car above a 1.8 litre engine. Introducing a higher tier of 200
g/km would boost Revenue coffers and please the environmental lobby. He
could also raise air passenger duty from £10 to £20 for flights
within Europe and from £40 to £50 for long-haul flights. "This is a
politically-safe stealth tax, given its eco-friendly connotations,"
said Dauppe. "The 'green' argument will no doubt serve the government
very well. But, in reality, the Revenue will be benefiting as more and
more people take to the skies."
Tax Avoidance Crackdown
A FURTHER clampdown on perceived tax "avoidance" is likely to be a key
part of the pre-budget report, as Labour continues to blur the line
between evasion and avoidance. HM Revenue and Customs chairman Dave
Hartnett recently declared it would have made tax avoidance "not
worthwhile" by 2008, so another raft of anti-avoidance measures
designed to shut down tax schemes disclosed under tax avoidance rules
is expected.
A-Day
WITH many of the new pensions simplification rules, set to come into
force on 6 April, creating loopholes that benefit high net worth
individuals, it is wise to expect some form of crackdown - or even a
partial postponement in implementation. The ability to take tax-free
lump sums and recycle funds back into a pension to gain 40 per cent tax
relief, passing assets on to the next generation from the new
alternatively secured pension and possible CGT avoidance through buying
residential property with pension funds could be closed or restricted.
Corporation tax on North Sea oil excavators and a keynote announcement
on the final form of UK real estate investment trusts could also be in
the pipeline, while venture capital trust managers will be looking for
news on the future tax incentives on their vehicles.
But McCusker warns: "As always, the devil will be in the detail. The
Chancellor will, of course, paint a rosy picture of the economy and
undoubtedly offer a couple of headline-grabbing give-aways to the
lowest income families.
"Under closer inspection, these may not meet expectations; quite
simply, he doesn't have the funds to give away."
Daytona
Crowley
Yankee Doodle Refugee wrote:
> http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
>
>
>
> BENJAMIN SHALOM BERNANKE, our new Fed Reserve Chairman, will he fix
> the trillions $$$$ debt to China/Asia, and spontaneously generate new
> magic bullet T-bonds for our Treasury!?? ....click here to see how
> Fannie Mae home loan mortgages work against the US public with the
> collusion of the U.S. Treasury, and how together they have gutted our
> nation like a megalomaniac Bonnie & Clyde ... this strategy goes by the
> name of "CARRYING TRADE," which means foreigners can borrow at cheap
How long before the dollar tanks ? And what are the prospects for a run
on the pound in the next six months ?
Tim
> Act like a dumb arse, get called a dumb arse.
I expect you must be called one very often, then.
> "Tim" wrote:
> > NI is a tax, just like income tax.
>
"Steve Firth" wrote
> I see you have swallowed government propaganda, hook line and sinker.
Really? I don't think so...
"Steve Firth" wrote
> They may treat NI as "just another tax" ...
That's because it *is* one!
"Steve Firth" wrote
> ... but that is not how it was sold to the electorate.
Exactly. Even though it *is* a tax, it wasn't "sold as one".
If I *had* "swallowed government propaganda, hook line and sinker", then I'd
believe it -- and not think it was a tax.
But as I do see it as a tax, I have hardly "swallowed government propaganda,
hook line and sinker", have I?
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Do you think that other tax-funded benefits (as well
> > as state pensions) also constitute Ponzi schemes?
>
"Steve Firth" wrote
> The benefit system is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, ...
OK...
"Steve Firth" wrote
> ... but NI is in it's very concept a Ponzi scheme.
Howso? No-one has ever suggested that NI contributions are "invested" in
any way. It's just money collected from the masses, which is then
re-distributed to other masses - just like other taxes & benefits.
What do you think the difference is between "NI & state pension" and "other
taxes & benefits"?
"Steve Firth" wrote
> Current investors...
"Investors"?! You mean "taxpayers"!
There is no "investment". No attempt at accumulating a fund is made.
"Steve Firth" wrote
> It always was unsustainable, ...
Depends what you mean by "it".
If benefits paid out are always set roughly the same as money raised from
contributions, then it *is* sustainable.
The problem is, that most people wouldn't be happy with the level of "per
person" benefit being reduced, or the level of contributions being raised.
"Steve Firth" wrote
> As soon as the population stabilised, and longevity
> improved, the scheme was doomed to fail and it has.
Of course.
Tim
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/03122005/17/brown-looks-set-tighten-taxation-net.htm
l
>
> Brown looks set to tighten the taxation net
>
> 3rd Dec
>
>
> Fiscal Drag
>
> THE pre-budget report could create a new breed of "super taxpayers".
> By freezing allowances, Brown will drag more people into the
> higher tax bracket: many of Britain's young families could end up
> with a marginal tax rate of up to 78 per cent (40 per cent income
> tax, 37 per cent tax credit and 1 per cent national insurance).
Sounds like a good reason to scrap tax credits?
Ronald Raygun
> "However, he will be bent on raising additional revenue. Freezing
> allowances - known as fiscal drag - is likely to play an important
> role."
I thought "freezing allowances" was known as winter fuel payments.
> Fiscal Drag
>
> THE pre-budget report could create a new breed of "super taxpayers". By
> freezing allowances, Brown will drag more people into the higher tax
> bracket: many of Britain's young families could end up with a marginal
> tax rate of up to 78 per cent (40 per cent income tax, 37 per cent tax
> credit and 1 per cent national insurance).
Tax credits are meant to reduce one's tax bill, not increase it.
I haven't heard of the introduction of a new feature called tax debits.
Andy Pandy
"Tim" <m...@home.uk> wrote in message
news:dmuntf$90f$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > Fiscal Drag
> >
> > THE pre-budget report could create a new breed of "super taxpayers".
> > By freezing allowances, Brown will drag more people into the
> > higher tax bracket: many of Britain's young families could end up
> > with a marginal tax rate of up to 78 per cent (40 per cent income
> > tax, 37 per cent tax credit and 1 per cent national insurance).
>
> Sounds like a good reason to scrap tax credits?
Absolutely, together with independant taxation and have a decent tax system like
most civilised countries.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy
"Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:H9Ckf.2193$iz3....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > THE pre-budget report could create a new breed of "super taxpayers". By
> > freezing allowances, Brown will drag more people into the higher tax
> > bracket: many of Britain's young families could end up with a marginal
> > tax rate of up to 78 per cent (40 per cent income tax, 37 per cent tax
> > credit and 1 per cent national insurance).
>
> Tax credits are meant to reduce one's tax bill, not increase it.
> I haven't heard of the introduction of a new feature called tax debits.
Actually that's a good phrase for it, because that's exactly what it is. You get
"tax credits" calculated depending on your circumstances (eg children,
disability etc). You then get "tax debits" on top of tax & NI if you're daft
enough to want to work for a living.
--
Andy
Ronald Raygun
Since when do you get further debits on top?
Where do these alleged 37% come from?
Nobody generally pays more marginal tax than 41%, unless you want to
count the likes of council tax, excise duty, VAT, etc.
Andy Pandy
"Ronald Raygun" <no....@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> >> > THE pre-budget report could create a new breed of "super taxpayers". By
> >> > freezing allowances, Brown will drag more people into the higher tax
> >> > bracket: many of Britain's young families could end up with a marginal
> >> > tax rate of up to 78 per cent (40 per cent income tax, 37 per cent tax
> >> > credit and 1 per cent national insurance).
> >>
> >> Tax credits are meant to reduce one's tax bill, not increase it.
> >> I haven't heard of the introduction of a new feature called tax debits.
> >
> > Actually that's a good phrase for it, because that's exactly what it is.
> > You get "tax credits" calculated depending on your circumstances (eg
> > children, disability etc). You then get "tax debits" on top of tax & NI if
> > you're daft enough to want to work for a living.
>
> Since when do you get further debits on top?
Debits are reduction in "tax credits".
> Where do these alleged 37% come from?
That's the income related withdrawal rate for the bulk of tax credits. Ie the
"tax debit" as you put it.
> Nobody generally pays more marginal tax than 41%, unless you want to
> count the likes of council tax, excise duty, VAT, etc.
Rubbish. Some people effectively pay 100% marginal rates.
--
Andy
tim (moved to sweden)
"Andy Pandy" <spam8...@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:3vgq7tF...@individual.net...
Only in a small number of very specific instances.
Ronald said 'generally'
tim
Andy Pandy
"tim (moved to sweden)" <tim_in_s...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3vgrf3F...@individual.net...
I don't think it's that rare. It'd apply to most people who earn below the
IS/JSA(IB) levels, eg a single parent who works a few hours a week.
> Ronald said 'generally'
He said 'generally' more than 41% marginal, which is not true. Many people are
in the 70% marginal band (22% tax, 11% NI and 37% TC reduction). If you've got 2
kids and earn under £24,000 you'd be in this band. If you've got 4 kids you're
in the 70% band until you earn over £30,000.
Hardly rare.
--
Andy
M Holmes
>> > Tumbleweed wrote:
>> >> No, payments from todays contributions have
>> >> always been used to finance todays pensions, rather
>> >> than the pensions of those making the contributions.
>> >
>> M Holmes wrote:
>> > Somehow that excuse didn't play well in Court in the
>> > Savings and Loans scandals. It seems strange that
>> > we accept it from politicians who stole our money.
> Do you also complain when they "steal" your income tax?
Certainly and I'll offer several hundred usenet articles on that very subject
as evidence.
> The VAT you pay when buying goods/services? etc etc
I can see you're quick on the uptake...
> "Steve Firth" wrote
>> National Insurance has always been a giant Ponzi scheme and would
>> have been illegal if anyone other than the government had set it up.
> That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only the government are allowed to
> impose taxes!
Which, when you think of it is hardly fair. I too can think of dumb
projects to which I'd like to force all of you to contribute.
FoFP
Yankee Doodle Refugee
monies from the other side of the GSE fence [government sponsored
enterprises, i.e., free loans and lots of funny money that really
should go to the unemployed and to the homeless or home wrecked of New
Orleans and the entire damaged Gulf Coast residents].
The Corps of Engineers, or COE, through its buddy in crime, the Dept.
of the Interior [which has its hands dirty now due to Jack Abramoff and
all the Bureau of Indian Affairs corruption over the dirty indian
reservation casino money---read my lips, BILLIONS], while in bed with
fellow crooks they draw up bogus spreadsheets on how they want to help
preserve America's wetlands [we are talking about engineers who
throughout history have seldom been conservationists of Mother Nature]
and their crocodile tears for the rescue of nature in these vast
wetlands [of which New Orleans and environs are a giant one] through
their con job of MITIGATION BANKS.
The GSE rules of thumb make it easy for the Army Corp to get giant
kickbacks at the top of the hierarchy by gobbling up caviar quality
loans from these MITIGATION BANKS. Alexandria, VA, is/was home to
several of these Mitigation Bank Associations!
Look up MITIGATION BANKS on Google and you will see the handprints of
several Masonic hot shots too. Just like the evidence left at the
scene of the ripp offs of Fannie Mae. [Fannie Mae is LOCATED in the old
Masonic headquarters of Wash DC in the same building, former temple, as
the GALLUP POLL Foundation, near Chinatown, DC.
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
M Holmes wrote:
> In uk.finance Yankee Doodle Refugee <yankee_doo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks! If anything is going to make folks here miss *my* rants about
> Fannie Mae, it's stuff like this...
>
> FoFP
Daytona
Crowley
At least Browns made one good move today in abandoning his plans to
allow 40% tax relief plus other benefits for second-home/holiday-home
owners who put their property into a SIPP (Self Invested Personal
Pension) from next April.
Even less chance of a spring bounce for the UK house market methinks !
:-)
"Brown bursts Sipps bubble"
Simon Moon, This is Money
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/retirement/article.html?in_article_id=405513&in_page_id=6&ct=5
5 December 2005
THE great Sipps bubble appears to have burst following a change in the
rules announced by the Chancellor today.
PROPERTY BLOW: Thousands of people had been planning to buy second
homes via Sipps
Homeowners considering buying second properties to take advantage of
tax breaks under Self Invested Personal Pensions (Sipps) after pensions
simplification on 6 April 2006 have suffered a major blow.
The new Sipps rules announced by Gordon Brown in his Pre-Budget Report
now exclude all residential investment properties along with other
assets such as fine wines, antiques and racehorses.
The news brought a swift and furious response from pensions industry
professionals. Jerome Melcer, actuarial director at BDO Stoy Hayward
Investment Management, said: 'Gordon Brown has made an enormous U-turn
on Sipps that has wasted thousands of hours of professional time.
'An entire industry has been set up to deal with property-based Sipps
and now it's all been canned.
'Having said that, this is where we should have been heading all along.
The Government has finally realised that investment in residential
property created enormous complexity not just for themselves but also
the pensions industry and now they've stripped it out entirely.
'Now, less than four months to A-Day, people have already taken action
to change pension arrangements, including irrevocable decisions over
pension transfers and large new contributions. These individuals will
have incurred professional fees and other costs in pursuing a strategy
that is no longer viable.'
Melcer added: 'Luckily there is protection for people who have already
committed to buy residential property with their Sipp as their
investment is protected but for anyone else trying to get involved
there will now be swingeing tax penalties for doing so.'
Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at the Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants, says: 'We had already predicted that this
loophole could be closed, although those who have already acquired such
assets to provide income for this future could now end up paying the
cost.'
He added: 'It had seemed unlikely that the Government intended to help
fund second homes in the UK, the south of France or the Costas at the
expense of other taxpayers or the Treasury.'
In documents released to coincide with today's Pre-Budget Report, the
Treasury said: 'A small part of the proposed [pensions] simplification
would allow all registered pension schemes to invest directly in
residential property.
'To prevent the potential abuse of the simplification rules, where
people could claim tax relief in relation to pension contributions into
Sipps for the purpose of funding purchases of holiday and second homes
for their or their family's personal use, from 6 April 2006 Sipps and
all other forms of self-directed pensions will be prohibited from
obtaining tax advantages when investing in residential property, and
certain other assets such as fine wines.
'This action will ensure that tax relief is only given to those whose
purpose in making the contribution is to provide themselves with a
secure retirement income. However, the Government remains committed to
encouraging investment in a range of assets as part of pensions saving
and is therefore minded to allow Sipps to invest in genuinely diverse
commercial vehicles that hold residential property, such as the
proposed Real Estate Investment Trust model.
'The Government will not hesitate to take action if it becomes clear
that people are trying to use collective vehicles to get around the
rules for prohibited assets.
'In addition, the Government will take action to prevent abuse of the
rules for tax-free lump sums from 6 April 2006, by removing tax
advantages when lump sums are recycled back into funds in order to
generate artificial levels of tax relief. The Government will also
introduce a small package of supplementary measures to ensure the
pension tax rules operate as intended.'
The Treasury statement added: 'The Government will bring forward
legislation in the Finance Bill to clarify how inheritance tax will
apply to choices under the new pension scheme rules, with effect from 6
April 2006. Further details will be announced in the New Year.'
Stuart Law, managing director of property investment specialist Assetz,
said the Chancellor had performed a quite remarkable U-turn. He said:
'The majority of enquiries we were receiving were related to holiday
home purchases and whilst many of these had an element of investment
about them, it was clear that the suitability of the properties as a
pension asset to provide income in retirement was questionable.'
Jim Buckle, managing director of property website, propertyfinder.com
said: 'On average, 15% of those looking to buy property on our website
are doing so for investment purposes and there has been a bit of a buzz
about property in key holiday locations in the UK as people anticipated
being able to put a holiday home in a Sipp.
'The changes the Chancellor has announced will certainly cool the
increased interest we have noticed in these areas and take some of the
shine off next year's summer holidays.'
Frank Williamson, managing director of PKF Financial Planning Ltd, said
the change of policy was alarming: 'The Chancellor has, for the second
time in 10 days, undermined confidence in pensions. His advance
criticism of the Turner report last week and today's removal of the
widely talked about tax advantages when investing in residential
property through Sipps will leave many people wondering what is going
on.'
Liberal Democrat Work and Pensions spokesman Danny Alexander said the
Chancellor had at last seen sense. 'Liberal Democrat MPs have been
campaigning against these proposals for two years and the Treasury has
now recognised that we were right that these plans threatened rural
communities. The idea that the Government should give tax breaks for
second-home ownership always was absurd.'
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=20122
Debbie Smythe
citizens are just bleating like sheep or trying to beat their illegal
immigration status by taking yet another unemployed american's job.
debbie
SCAM #665 [Corp of Engineers Mitigation Banks]---in addition to Fannie
Mae, scam #666]
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
What is a MITIGATION BANK and what does it have to do with military
engineers and wetland swap deals and New Orleans Reconstruction?
[Critical Habitats Inc.] MITIGATION BANKS CONSORTIUM, and Palacios
Wetland Mitigation Bank, Matagorda Texas on the Gulf Coast! --
In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation
-- http://www2.eli.org/wmb/backgroundb.htm
HOW CAN YOU HELP MOTHER NATURE and the Gulf Coast Victims? Who Are Your
Best Wetland Bank Customers??
The following is a list of some activities in your region that will
impact wetlands and generate demand for your wetland bank.
http://www.criticalhabitats.com/about.htm
WHO MITIGATION BANKS HELP THE MOST!!
**Transportation development such as highway or road widenings, new
road development, parking areas
**Utilities such as pipeline construction, power line construction,
hydroelectric power development
**Commercial Marinas
**Commercial and industrial construction including shopping centers and
industrial parks
**Giant Residential developers
In-lieu-fee mitigation is a method for satisfying compensatory wetland
mitigation requirements. With in-lieu-fee programs, project applicants
agree to contribute mitigation fees to an approved third party that
will use these funds to implement the required compensation.
In-lieu-fee mitigation is similar to wetland mitigation banking in that
they both provide consolidated, off-site mitigation for multiple permit
recipients.
Although in theory, wetland mitigation banking provides compensatory
mitigation in advance of authorized impacts, in-lieu-fee mitigation
does not offer this benefit. Mitigation funds are collected in advance
of permitted impacts, but the funds may not be used to compensate for
permitted losses for some time. In-lieu-fee mitigation can, however, be
used to restore a variety of wetland types of varying sizes at a number
of locations, while mitigation banks frequently consolidate numerous
wetland impacts into one large site. Until 2001, there were no
standards governing approval or use of in-lieu-fee programs.
In-lieu-fee mitigation "occurs in circumstances where a permittee
provides funds to an in-lieu-fee sponsor instead of either completing
project-specific mitigation or purchasing credits from a mitigation
bank approved under the Banking Guidance."
Source: U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Department of Interior, and U.S. Department of Commerce.
Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu-Fee Arrangements for
Compensatory Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 2000.
Crowley
The US economy is in big trouble in more ways than one. How long before
the dollar starts going down the pan ?
Housing Bubble Bursts in the Market for U.S. Mortgage Bonds
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- In the U.S. bond market, the housing bubble has
burst.
Bonds backed by home loans to the riskiest borrowers, the fastest
growing part of the $7.6 trillion mortgage market, have lost about 2.5
percent since September on concern an 18-month rise in interest rates
may force more than 150,000 consumers to default.
``We've been hearing about risks of a house price bubble, easy credit
and loans to borrowers that really don't qualify, and now in the last
couple of months we're starting to see things turn for the worse,''
said Joseph Auth, a bond fund manager who helps oversee $135 billion at
Standish Mellon Asset Management in Boston. ``We don't know if it's
going to be a hard or soft landing.''
Mortgage securities with low ratings and loans from Ameriquest Mortgage
Co. and New Century Financial Corp., two Irvine, California-based
companies that specialize in lending to the 50 million people with
histories of late payments and bankruptcies, yield the most in two
years. The rise in yields reduced the value of loans made by lenders,
resulting in lower profit margins and higher rates for consumers with
bad credit.
The slump in the bonds is one of the first signs the housing boom is
ending after the Federal Reserve's 12 interest- rate increases. Real
estate has accounted for about half the economy's growth since 2001,
according to Merrill Lynch & Co.
Growing Market
About 13.4 percent of all mortgages at the end of June were to
borrowers considered most likely to default, such as those with high
credit card balances, up from 2.4 percent in 1998, according to the
Mortgage Bankers Association. The Washington- based trade group's 2,700
members represent 70 percent of the home-loan business.
The amount of bonds backed by these high-risk loans has more than
doubled since 2001, to a record $476 billion, according to the Bond
Market Association, a New York-based trade group of more than 200
securities firms.
The market ``will deteriorate as housing slows down,'' said Christopher
Flanagan, who runs asset-backed debt research at New York-based
JPMorgan Chase & Co., the fourth-largest mortgage lender in the U.S.
The amount of loans made next year may fall by as much as 25 percent,
he said.
Borrowers with credit scores below 620 as measured by Fair Isaac Corp.
have a higher risk of defaulting, and loans to these people are
considered subprime. About 20 percent of the U.S. adult population has
a score below 620, according to Fair Isaac, the Minneapolis-based
company whose FICO ratings are the benchmark for loans and credit
cards. The test scores borrowers from 300 to 850 and the lower the
mark, the riskier the credit.
Delinquency Rates
The last time delinquency rates on lower-rated mortgages jumped was in
2000 as economic growth slumped following the Fed's six rate increases.
The central bank has lifted rates 12 times since June 2004, to 4
percent from 1 percent.
The weighted average default rate on the riskier loans rose to 10.1
percent in November 2001 from about 7 percent in early 2000, according
to Michael Youngblood, a managing director of asset-backed debt at
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group Inc., an Arlington, Virginia-based
securities firm that specializes in mortgage-related assets.
The late payment rate is 5.51 percent now. Every 1 percentage point
increase in that rate means another 34,700 home-loan defaults,
according to Youngblood's calculations.
``Employment drives credit conditions in subprime loans and as long as
we see a robust labor market we should not expect deterioration in
subprime performance,'' said Youngblood, who expects the default rate
to reach 5.75 percent by August.
The Labor Department said last week that the unemployment rate in
November held at 5 percent for a second month, below the 5.64 percent
average over the past 20 years.
`Big Fear'
Irene Von Toussaint, a 33-year-old married mother of one from Bayville,
New York, said she's depending on improvements to her credit to avoid
paying a rate of as much as 12 percent when the fixed period of her New
Century interest-only loan expires in two years. Von Toussaint's credit
score is 584.
November 1985 was the last time any prime borrower paid 12 percent on a
30-year fixed-rate mortgage, according to Freddie Mac. Von Toussaint
now pays 7.1 percent, compared with about 5.25 percent for a so-called
prime customer.
``Paying bills on time is the big fear because I've been
disorganized,'' said Von Toussaint, who now has her payments deducted
automatically from her checking account.
Loss Estimate
Losses on mortgage bonds backed by subprime loans that will be made
next year may rise to 7 percent, contrasting with 2 percent for bonds
issued the past two years, should home prices hold steady, said Kenneth
Posner, a New York-based finance analyst at Morgan Stanley.
The average yield on bonds rated BBB-, the lowest investment-grade
ranking, and backed by payments on adjustable rate mortgages made to
the riskiest borrowers is 7.23 percent, the highest since December
2003, according to JPMorgan. The yield was 5.7 percent in October.
The 1.53 percentage point increase compares with a rise of 0.4
percentage point to 5.93 percent for higher quality 30-year mortgage
securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae.
Lenders that rushed to provide mortgages amid rising home prices are
now stuck with loans worth less than they expected because bond
investors are demanding more protection. They are raising mortgage
rates help to make up the difference.
`Changing Environment'
``In a rapidly changing environment, you can find yourself ahead or
behind the yield curve,'' Robert Cole, chief executive officer of New
Century, the No. 2 lender to people with the lowest credit scores, said
in a Nov. 15 interview in New York. ``With rates going up, it's more
likely behind.''
Profit margins for New Century may narrow to 15 to 25 basis points this
quarter from 61 basis points in the third quarter, and 175 basis points
in 2004, Chief Financial Officer Patti Dodge said in an interview. A
basis point is 0.01 percentage point.
New Century is increasing rates twice as fast for subprime borrowers
than for others, Cole said. The company lifted its weighted average
rate to about 7.9 percent in November from 7.18 percent in August,
pushing up the cost of a $200,000 loan by $98 a month. A prime borrower
would only have to pay about $56 more.
Gains from sales of loans at New Century fell 13 percent to $176.2
million in the third quarter from a year earlier even as sales rose 43
percent.
At Kansas City, Missouri-based NovaStar Financial Inc., another lender
to borrowers with poor credit histories, profit from sales tumbled 23
percent.
Yield Spreads
``Originators don't charge enough for the risk'' and will lose money as
investors demand higher yields, said Alex Wei, who co-manages $3
billion in bonds at Philadelphia-based Delaware Management.
Ameriquest, the largest company specializing in loans to subprime
borrowers, had to pay investors a yield of 2.75 percentage points more
than benchmark one-month lending rates to sell $14 million of BBB rated
mortgage bonds last month.
The extra yield was 1 percentage point higher than on a similar issue
sold by the company in June, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The $1.2 billion AAA rated portion was priced at 24 basis points, 1
basis point higher than in June.
Sales of bonds backed by risky loans will fall next year to about $375
billion, JPMorgan's Flanagan said.
The Fed is signaling that it's unlikely to stop lifting borrowing costs
until housing cools. The Commerce Department said last week that new
home sales in October increased 13 percent, the most since April 1993,
to a record 1.424 million annual rate.
``Froth'' in housing markets may be spilling over into mortgage
markets, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned an American Bankers
Association convention in September. A rise in interest- only loans
that initially don't pay down principle and the introduction of
``exotic'' variable-rate mortgages ``are developments that bear close
scrutiny,'' he said.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Al Yoon in New York at ay...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 6, 2005 00:02 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aDSB370ItSJU&refer=us
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showforum=22
Anna Karinina Rove
Why are we helping undocumented aliens in the USA to buy homes and cars
and SUVs and giving away our assets to the booming Chinese economy, who
today as a middle class live better than our middle class in the USA,
especially better than the dissed and neglected displaced denizens of
New Orleans. We have produced a surplus of native born PhDs in science
and engineering right here at home, for over a decade or two, and yet
our lawyers and Senators have been doling out H1-B visas to alien
scientists and engineers!
Our exports are laughable compared to Germany ... thus, do we have any
real money left in our Treasury that has not been spent on contractors
such as Halliburton and Wackenhut and KBG and Caryle Group and USIS,
just to mention a few of the insiders, with no bid contracts awash over
in Afghanistan and Iraq for these parasites. I don't think so. Prove me
wrong, make my day.
When even our own UNIONS do NOTHING to help African Americans nor blue
collar workers nor our rapidly shrinking and vanishing middle class to
stay afloat and to train to keep abreast of new technologies, when
these impotent and supplicating and feather lined UNION managers can
only reach out like beggars to help ONLY illegal immigrants to organize
and strike against Big Business abuses, and not organize and ASSIST US
LEGALS and NATURALIZED CITIZENS, we are in need of some new founding
fathers and a new and bolder drum and fife corps!
Lace up your boots and pump up the volume! Make some RIOTOUS music and
Tumbleweed
"Anna Karinina Rove" <anna_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133979785.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
>
> Why are we helping undocumented aliens in the USA to buy homes and cars
....why are you posting this crap to UK newsgroups?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Crowley
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "Anna Karinina Rove" <anna_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133979785.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
> >
> > Why are we helping undocumented aliens in the USA to buy homes and cars
>
> ....why are you posting this crap to UK newsgroups?
>
> --
> Tumbleweed
I see your point but the looming economic problems in the US will have
repercussions for the UK, and even the global, economy.
Tumbleweed
"Crowley" <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1133983239.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
maybe they will, but rants about helping illegal aliens dont fall into that
bracket.
Bill
"Anna Karinina Rove" <anna_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133979785.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why are we helping undocumented aliens in the USA to buy homes and cars
> and SUVs and giving away our assets to the booming Chinese economy, who
> today as a middle class live better than our middle class in the USA,
> especially better than the dissed and neglected displaced denizens of
> New Orleans. We have produced a surplus of native born PhDs in science
> and engineering right here at home, for over a decade or two, and yet
> our lawyers and Senators have been doling out H1-B visas to alien
> scientists and engineers!
>
What is the basis for your claim that we have been producing a surplus of
native born PhDs in science and engineering? I have heard both Bill Gates and
Andy Grove say that is not true and they must get more from the outside now
and there is a great need to encourage more people in the US to go into
science and engineering. If there is a surplus, less should do so.
Bill
Dr Zen
squeaking, and it goes like this:
Bill Gates has a particular liking for Chinese. He wants to create his
own Terracotta Army, except he will use real Chinamen. On a particular
day in the next few years, every computer using Windows will seize up
and in the chaos that ensues, Bill's Terracotta Army will take over.
Don't say you haven't been told!
Dr Zen
Godless. Potless. Not Completely Hopeless.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
Tim
> > That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only
> > the government are allowed to impose taxes!
>
> Which, when you think of it is hardly fair.
You'd like other people to impose taxes? :-((
"M Holmes" wrote
> I too can think of dumb projects to which
> I'd like to force all of you to contribute.
I'm sure that many people could think of things that *they'd* like other
people to pay for!
Is the answer to scrap all taxes, so people always have to pay for things
they want themselves? Let's suppose a political party campaigned based on
scrapping all taxes (and therefore also scrapping all benefits!). Who would
vote for them? Mainly the "rich" and only few of the "poor"? Which section
of the population is bigger, the "rich" or the "poor"?...
With more "poor" people each having the same voting power per person (one
vote) as "rich" people, won't it always turn out that the "rich" are forced
to subsidise the "poor"? (taxes from the "rich" going to pay benefits to
the "poor").
M Holmes
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only
>> > the government are allowed to impose taxes!
>>
> "M Holmes" wrote
>> Which, when you think of it is hardly fair.
> You'd like other people to impose taxes? :-((
I'd like it to be fair: either everyone can impose cntributions for what
they see as Good Works or nobody can.
> "M Holmes" wrote
>> I too can think of dumb projects to which
>> I'd like to force all of you to contribute.
> I'm sure that many people could think of things that *they'd* like other
> people to pay for!
My point exactly.
> Is the answer to scrap all taxes
That would be a reasonable option.
> so people always have to pay for things
> they want themselves?
Or ask other people nicely.
> Let's suppose a political party campaigned based on scrapping all
> taxes (and therefore also scrapping all benefits!). Who would vote
> for them?
I wouldn't do so for anyone who planned to do this all at once, but if
someone were to propose a roadmap to get us there gradually so that we
could evolve private mechanisms in place of state ones, I'd not just
vote, I'd campaign for them.
> Mainly the "rich" and only few of the "poor"? Which section
> of the population is bigger, the "rich" or the "poor"?...
Are you sure that the current situation where the state runs near half
the economy doesn't pnuish the poor more than the rich? It's the poor
who end up on Council estates with perverse incentives to just vegetate
their lives away...
> With more "poor" people each having the same voting power per person
> (one vote) as "rich" people, won't it always turn out that the "rich"
> are forced to subsidise the "poor"?
An excellent reason why it's always destructive of a society to allow
people to vote themselves other people's property. This was even ponted
out by MP's back at the start of the 19th Century when this experiment
was started. The only question left is how bad the welfare state will
have to get in terms of dependency and crime caused before we admit that
the experiment has failed.
You can't turn poor people into rich people just by throwing money at
theem: whooda thunk it?
http://liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=185
FoFP
Tim
> >> > That's simply because NI is a TAX, and only
> >> > the government are allowed to impose taxes!
> >>
> > "M Holmes" wrote
> >> Which, when you think of it is hardly fair.
>
> > You'd like other people to impose taxes? :-((
>
> I'd like it to be fair: either everyone can impose cntributions
> for what they see as Good Works or nobody can.
But someone might see it as a "Good Work" for them to have a Ferrari!
If they could simply impose contributions for this onto everyone else,
without even some outside "check" that it was reasonable, then wouldn't the
whole system fall down immediately?
And if you *do* have an "outside check" -- *who* is going to say whether
it's OK or not to go ahead? Some kind of "government" body?!
> "Tim" wrote:
> > With more "poor" people each having the same voting power
> > per person (one vote) as "rich" people, won't it always
> > turn out that the "rich" are forced to subsidise the "poor"?
>
"M Holmes" wrote
> An excellent reason why it's always destructive of a society
> to allow people to vote themselves other people's property.
What about giving people with more property, more votes "per person"?
M Holmes
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > You'd like other people to impose taxes? :-((
> "M Holmes" wrote
>> I'd like it to be fair: either everyone can impose cntributions
>> for what they see as Good Works or nobody can.
> But someone might see it as a "Good Work" for them to have a Ferrari!
Certainly. Wouldn't that indeed be a Good Work from their point of view?
I can't see that it's any worse than the CAp subsidising rich tobacco
farmers.
> If they could simply impose contributions for this onto everyone else,
> without even some outside "check" that it was reasonable, then wouldn't the
> whole system fall down immediately?
Probably. So this leads to the question of why *anyone* should be able
to do this.
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > With more "poor" people each having the same voting power
>> > per person (one vote) as "rich" people, won't it always
>> > turn out that the "rich" are forced to subsidise the "poor"?
> "M Holmes" wrote
>> An excellent reason why it's always destructive of a society
>> to allow people to vote themselves other people's property.
> What about giving people with more property, more votes "per person"?
The trouble with votes is that it costs nothing to use them since
they're automatically replenished, whereas this doesn't happen when we
spend money. Thus anyone that can garner 51% of votes can in principle
vote themselves 100% of any Goodies going.
If a faction has 51% of the money however, they won't be able to outbid
the 49% for very much before they end up with less money than the other
faction, and thus start losing the bidding. Thus bidding with money,
rather than votes, will lead to a distribution more in line with the
starting position of the folks concerned: the 51% faction will end up
with around 51% of the Goodies.
FoFP
Tim
> >> > With more "poor" people each having the same voting power
> >> > per person (one vote) as "rich" people, won't it always
> >> > turn out that the "rich" are forced to subsidise the "poor"?
>
> > "M Holmes" wrote
> >> An excellent reason why it's always destructive of a society
> >> to allow people to vote themselves other people's property.
>
> > What about giving people with more property, more votes "per person"?
>
> The trouble with votes is that it costs nothing to use them since
> they're automatically replenished, whereas this doesn't happen
> when we spend money. Thus anyone that can garner 51% of
> votes can in principle vote themselves 100% of any Goodies going.
>
> If a faction has 51% of the money however, they won't be able
> to outbid the 49% for very much before they end up with less
> money than the other faction, and thus start losing the bidding.
> Thus bidding with money, rather than votes, will lead to a distribution
> more in line with the starting position of the folks concerned:
> the 51% faction will end up with around 51% of the Goodies.
It sounds like you would be selling votes for money...?
M Holmes
>> >> "Tim" wrote:
> "M Holmes" wrote
>> The trouble with votes is that it costs nothing to use them since
>> they're automatically replenished, whereas this doesn't happen
>> when we spend money. Thus anyone that can garner 51% of
>> votes can in principle vote themselves 100% of any Goodies going.
>> If a faction has 51% of the money however, they won't be able
>> to outbid the 49% for very much before they end up with less
>> money than the other faction, and thus start losing the bidding.
>> Thus bidding with money, rather than votes, will lead to a distribution
>> more in line with the starting position of the folks concerned:
>> the 51% faction will end up with around 51% of the Goodies.
> It sounds like you would be selling votes for money...?
Wouldn't it be easier to dispense with the votes and just sell services
for moeny to those who want them?
FoFP
--
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four [Kipling]
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
Tim
> >> The trouble with votes is that it costs nothing to use them since
> >> they're automatically replenished, whereas this doesn't happen
> >> when we spend money. Thus anyone that can garner 51% of
> >> votes can in principle vote themselves 100% of any Goodies going.
>
> >> If a faction has 51% of the money however, they won't be able
> >> to outbid the 49% for very much before they end up with less
> >> money than the other faction, and thus start losing the bidding.
> >> Thus bidding with money, rather than votes, will lead to a distribution
> >> more in line with the starting position of the folks concerned:
> >> the 51% faction will end up with around 51% of the Goodies.
>
> > It sounds like you would be selling votes for money...?
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to dispense with the votes and
> just sell services for moeny to those who want them?
What happens to those that cannot afford food & housing?
Tumbleweed
news:dnc9ni$ffa$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> What happens to those that cannot afford food & housing?
>
To start with they wouldnt have an incentive to produce more of the same in
order to keep themselves in food and housing, as they do today.
Ronald Raygun
> "M Holmes" wrote
>> Wouldn't it be easier to dispense with the votes and
>> just sell services for moeny to those who want them?
>
> What happens to those that cannot afford food & housing?
They either get "on their bikes" and find a job or, if incapable,
they throw themselves upon the mercy of charities [*]. There would
be an incentive to set up charitites, and it would be in the interest
of those who could afford to to contribute to them, because the
alternative is that the downtrodden would turn to crime, and nobody
wants that.
[*] Not much different from the way we do it now, except that the
charity is managed by the state. The only advantage of doing it
that way is that it dresses it up to look like an entitlement, to
appease the "I'm too proud to take charity" brigade.
M Holmes
>> > It sounds like you would be selling votes for money...?
> "M Holmes" wrote
>> Wouldn't it be easier to dispense with the votes and
>> just sell services for moeny to those who want them?
> What happens to those that cannot afford food & housing?
The same as now: someone organises charity for them.