Oh great another tax rise
Discussion
Under the current system people have tax incentives to encourage them to save for their retirement. This system is obviously unacceptable to Labour because it does not allow them the control over every aspect of people's lives they so desperately seek.
So it looks like we are heading for compulsion, and who bets that soon afterwards the tax incentives will be withdrawn.
Full Telegraph article below.
Brown hints at enforced saving
By George Trefgarne
(Filed: 27/09/2005)
People may soon be compelled to save for a pension, Gordon Brown hinted yesterday.
The Chancellor said David Blunkett, the Work and Pensions Secretary, had asked a commission on the future of pensions to "examine the case for moving beyond a voluntary system".
At present, employees are not compelled to join a pension scheme, but ministers are concerned that many people face poverty in retirement and reliance on means-tested benefits because they are not saving enough.
Compulsion is politically sensitive because requiring people to pay into a pension could be seen as a new tax. Forcing individuals to put aside up to a 10th of their income for their retirement could also divert money away from consumer spending and impact on the economy.
However, the idea is quite popular. An opinion poll last year found half of people would back compulsory pensions provided employers contributed too. Business leaders would take some convincing. The CBI has already said it opposes this.
In March, Peter Hain, now Northern Ireland Secretary, hinted at such an idea. But Labour officials later backed away from it.
One method favoured by Mr Blunkett is so-called soft compulsion. This would mean employers would have to enrol workers in pension schemes unless they actively opted out. "Almost everyone favours this," Mr Blunkett said recently.
The Pensions Commission, chaired by the businessman Adair Turner, will report to Tony Blair on Nov 30.
>> Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 27th September 11:18
So it looks like we are heading for compulsion, and who bets that soon afterwards the tax incentives will be withdrawn.
Full Telegraph article below.
Brown hints at enforced saving
By George Trefgarne
(Filed: 27/09/2005)
People may soon be compelled to save for a pension, Gordon Brown hinted yesterday.
The Chancellor said David Blunkett, the Work and Pensions Secretary, had asked a commission on the future of pensions to "examine the case for moving beyond a voluntary system".
At present, employees are not compelled to join a pension scheme, but ministers are concerned that many people face poverty in retirement and reliance on means-tested benefits because they are not saving enough.
Compulsion is politically sensitive because requiring people to pay into a pension could be seen as a new tax. Forcing individuals to put aside up to a 10th of their income for their retirement could also divert money away from consumer spending and impact on the economy.
However, the idea is quite popular. An opinion poll last year found half of people would back compulsory pensions provided employers contributed too. Business leaders would take some convincing. The CBI has already said it opposes this.
In March, Peter Hain, now Northern Ireland Secretary, hinted at such an idea. But Labour officials later backed away from it.
One method favoured by Mr Blunkett is so-called soft compulsion. This would mean employers would have to enrol workers in pension schemes unless they actively opted out. "Almost everyone favours this," Mr Blunkett said recently.
The Pensions Commission, chaired by the businessman Adair Turner, will report to Tony Blair on Nov 30.
>> Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 27th September 11:18
Einion Yrth said:
Once upon a time we had to save compulsorily towards a pension - it was called National Insurance. Funnily enough I'm still paying National Insurance, what happened to that principle then?
Last budget he put NI up by 1% to 11% and removed the 40% bracket ceiling on that 1%. What he's talking about here is having effectively a 21% rate of NI.
It's a tax alright, nothing more nothing less.
wolves_wanderer said:
I've got a better idea, why don't we just give all our money to the government and then they can give us pocket money every week. We can have it witheld if we are naughty and get extra if we do chores.
Internally the treasury refer to revenue loss, when they say this thet are referring to the proportion of our income that we are 'allowed' to keep by the treasury.
In their mentality they are entitled to 100% of your income, well infact it's not your income it's theirs, but they allow you to keep a proprtion of it, or rather they give you a certain % of their income as they would see it.
It's quite a hard mentality to get your head around but there we go.
JagLover said:
One method favoured by Mr Blunkett is so-called soft compulsion. This would mean employers would have to enrol workers in pension schemes unless they actively opted out. "Almost everyone favours this," Mr Blunkett said recently.
I dont trust this guy. He has been proved untrustworthy and idiots are still talking to him and letting us know his views. I dont want to see this guy, I dont want to hear this guy and I certainly dont want to know his views on anything
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And of course there is no compulsion for public sector workers because they have their pensions paid for by us.
My 18 year old daughter has taken a job with the civil service during her gap year. Although she is only on a short term contract (max 51 weeks) she is entitled to join the Civil service pension scheme. She has to contribute nothing but the tax payer will contribute to her pension whilst she fulfills her short term contract. It's mad.
Einion Yrth said:
Once upon a time we had to save compulsorily towards a pension - it was called National Insurance. Funnily enough I'm still paying National Insurance, what happened to that principle then?
National Insurance was conceived with the idea that all current contributors would provide the cash flow for all current spending, i.e. there was never a reserve built up.
Now the current spending exceeds the contributions (demographics and numbers/duration of claimants), so the whole system is unsustainable.
I'd far prefer we abolish NI and allow people to provide their own unemployment/health insurance and pensions, tax deductible, and just have a simple income tax which is used to pay for safety-net benefits and pensions - which should not be sufficient to be a desirable lifestyle choice.
and bring back hanging, and the good old days...
I've never understood how, when there were 3m unemployed that there was still enough to go in the pension fund.
Now we are paying more tax than ever before and have less unemployed than ever before and there isnt enough to go in the pension fund.
Wheres it all gone?
And the £30bn from the 3G auctions, wheres that gone?
10 & 11 Downing Street must contain some of the biggest fraudsters this country has ever seen.
Now we are paying more tax than ever before and have less unemployed than ever before and there isnt enough to go in the pension fund.
Wheres it all gone?
And the £30bn from the 3G auctions, wheres that gone?
10 & 11 Downing Street must contain some of the biggest fraudsters this country has ever seen.
JagLover said:
Wheres it all gone?
700,00 extra public sector workers
'Tax credits' ie extending the welfare system to the low paid in work.
and anything else they can throw money at.
But more workers is surely a good thing for the pension pot???
I appreciate that they are a cost, and I am probably being epically naiive here, but when the civil service requisition a new member of staff is that not full costed out like the private sector?
I just cant fathom for one second how they have spunked quite that much cash on nothing, in fact worse than nothing, this country has got progressively worse since 97...
finally people are now seeing the true colours of TB and "Dick Turpin" Brown..pumping money into a public sector bucket full of holes.
the fundamental problem in the UK is that the TOTAL tax take is way too high and is rising in an attempt to fulfil the government's attempts to create a public sector nirvana (despite what TB espouses about reform).
i like most others here have to balance expenditure with intake and sensible levels of borrowing. unlike Brown and local government who spend then wonder how to raise the money. there is no bottomless pit.
i for one have had enough of being fleeced at every opportunity by central and local government and seeing little back in return. a question to you all...
at what level do you consider (total) taxation as a % to be too high? include NI, VAT, fuel, income tax, car tax, etc.
(i think i'm about 53%, to me that is 20% too much)
try working yours out?
any comments?
the fundamental problem in the UK is that the TOTAL tax take is way too high and is rising in an attempt to fulfil the government's attempts to create a public sector nirvana (despite what TB espouses about reform).
i like most others here have to balance expenditure with intake and sensible levels of borrowing. unlike Brown and local government who spend then wonder how to raise the money. there is no bottomless pit.
i for one have had enough of being fleeced at every opportunity by central and local government and seeing little back in return. a question to you all...
at what level do you consider (total) taxation as a % to be too high? include NI, VAT, fuel, income tax, car tax, etc.
(i think i'm about 53%, to me that is 20% too much)
try working yours out?
any comments?
Plotloss said:
But more workers is surely a good thing for the pension pot???
I appreciate that they are a cost, and I am probably being epically naiive here, but when the civil service requisition a new member of staff is that not full costed out like the private sector?
No
Public secor pensions are mostly unfunded. Ie pensions are paid through current spending.
The liability is building up and rivals the national debt.
timmy30 said:
I've got a better idea, why don't we just give all our money to the government and then they can give us pocket money every week. We can have it witheld if we are naughty and get extra if we do chores.
Internally the treasury refer to revenue loss, when they say this thet are referring to the proportion of our income that we are 'allowed' to keep by the treasury.
In their mentality they are entitled to 100% of your income, well infact it's not your income it's theirs, but they allow you to keep a proprtion of it, or rather they give you a certain % of their income as they would see it.
It's quite a hard mentality to get your head around but there we go.
OMFG I really wish you hadn't told me that. I've always kind of suspected it, but REVENUE LOSS?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff