General politics discussion thread

[David]

Anyway, turning the tables: Given that you wouldn't wish to increase the retirement age, Harry, and that there won't be enough workers to pay contributions to cover the retirees' pensions, what would you do?

I'd do what i've actually done since I started working, Ron.

 

I'd forget the idea of a pension, and just stick a percentage of what you earn every week/month away into a bank account.

 

That way you can have access to it if you run into health problems in your later years, or you can keep it stashed away and when you think you have enough, you can retire when you see fit.

 

I remember a year or so ago there was a thread on this forum about pensions and the like, and I was laughed at for doing that.

 

It's not worked out too badly now.

 

What i'd do on a wider scale is provide a pension based on;

 

The type of work you did (this should determine the age by which you can retire)

How much you actually paid into the system.

 

If you paid nothing in, by way of never working, then you get fuck all back.

 

I'm sure that this wouldn't ensure a "holiday in your later years", but if you've been smart and saved your cash as well, then you'll be okay.

[gary v1]

You may well be better getting yourself a Stakeholder pension fund. This is actually very similar to putting your money in the bank but has the major advantage of your contributions being tax free. When you choose to retire you can take up to 25% of your fund's total as a tax free lump sum (so you have at no point paid tax on this cash) and spend the rest on an annuity. This will give you an income, which can be linked to inflation, for the rest of your life.

 

This is where I imagine you may not like the idea as much. In all honesty annuity rates are a bit shit but hopefully some more competition in the marker will mean that they improve. The main advantage of buying one over just running your savings down is that you'll always have an income (which should remain the same in real terms). Once you bank account is empty your plan is fucked.

Edited June 30, 2010 by gary v1

[David]

Nah, i've always kept things simple by not investing in anything that can be fucked up by incompetent bankers, and having seen recent developments, i'm happy I have.

[Loki]

Yeah, but not paying tax on pensions contributions is just smart. By not doing that, you're throwing money away.

 

Here's something else to think about, all you young'uns. The pensions contributions that you make when you're young, even if they are small, can make a huge difference to your when you're older. Putting 25 quid a month into a pension during your 20s may not sound like much but that money will earn money and add to your pension for the next 30 years.

 

If you don't start putting money away until your 40s, you'll have to put a lot more away to make up for it.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Loki

[Kenny McBride]

Anyone who is working should have a pension plan in place. Whether that's a stakeholder pension, a traditional employer's pension or investing the money in some other way (for example, there's been a trend in recent years to invest in property, on the basis that house prices were rising faster than almost any other investments), it's all doing the same thing - providing a means for you to have an income after you're too old to work. David's plan is naive because his savings are being taxed and with interest rates likely to remain pretty low for the immediate future, he's essentially earning nothing. The odds are that unless he's found a REALLY good savings account, he's actually losing money, because the interest payments less tax probably aren't keeping pace with inflation, and certainly won't be having a significant enough compounding effect to make stashing them that way profitable at all.

 

However, that doesn't negate the importance of state pensions. Lots of people are in low paid jobs and have families to support on those low wages. They can't afford to save significantly and often won't have access to an employer scheme. The state pension ensures that they have some sort of income once their working lives are over. In principle, I'm not opposed to raising the pension age by a few years, but it needs to be done gradually so that people can be properly prepared for it. At the same time, there should be significant efforts made (over a 20-30 year horizon, which is sadly outwith the purview of any government) to reduce the reliance on the legacy debt. As far as possible, we should be avoiding the situation where my taxes pay for my grandparents' pensions. With good management and sound investment, it should become possible to have a national pension fund that actually earns enough money to cover its own debts, and my contributions more or less cover what I take out of it at the end of the day. The Norwegian national pension fund is a pretty good example. What's more, as one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, it's actually able to exert a certain amount of political power, such as when they took the decision a while back to establish a more ethical investment policy for the fund.

 

On the subject of budget cuts, it's utter nonsense to talk about how cutting public expenditure will automatically increase activity in the private sector. If the private sector were going to explode, it would have happened by now. There's plenty of people unemployed and interest rates are at record lows with no signs of a significant rise any time soon. However, until firstly, banks are willing to lend more freely and secondly, we develop more of an entrepreneurial culture, there just won't be that sudden move towards substantial private sector growth. Over the long haul, I'm all for a balanced budget, but slashing spending now just doesn't make sense.

 

If it were up to me, I'd do a couple of things. First, I'd double the personal tax allowance and raise the lowest band to mean that most people who are paying tax at all are paying roughly the same. That instantly lifts a lot of people out of poverty and takes away a substantial chunk of the benefits trap while also giving people at the bottom end of the wage scale a bit more spending money to put into the economy without massively changing the amount of actual revenue received by the government. It would probably also cut out the need for a certain degree of income support, tax credits and so forth, thus reducing government expenditure. Secondly, I'd put in place a corporate tax break of something like

[David]

David's plan is naive because his savings are being taxed and with interest rates likely to remain pretty low for the immediate future, he's essentially earning nothing. The odds are that unless he's found a REALLY good savings account, he's actually losing money, because the interest payments less tax probably aren't keeping pace with inflation, and certainly won't be having a significant enough compounding effect to make stashing them that way profitable at all.

The thing is, I don't really care about any of that.

 

I've been putting money away every week for 15 years so far, and i've saved a tidy little sum already, so it's doing fine.

 

It'll be there and available for me when I need it, and I don't run the risk of it disappearing into a black hole at some point down the line.

 

As I said over a year ago, if anyone else fancies handing their cash over to the experts to earn a profit on it for them, go ahead.

[The King Of Swing]

I agree with David.

 

He may not be making a profit from his savings but at least he knows that his money is safe, I was planning on putting money away myself but at 31 its probably to late for that now.

[Kenny McBride]

David's plan is naive because his savings are being taxed and with interest rates likely to remain pretty low for the immediate future, he's essentially earning nothing. The odds are that unless he's found a REALLY good savings account, he's actually losing money, because the interest payments less tax probably aren't keeping pace with inflation, and certainly won't be having a significant enough compounding effect to make stashing them that way profitable at all.

The thing is, I don't really care about any of that.

 

I've been putting money away every week for 15 years so far, and i've saved a tidy little sum already, so it's doing fine.

 

It'll be there and available for me when I need it, and I don't run the risk of it disappearing into a black hole at some point down the line.

 

As I said over a year ago, if anyone else fancies handing their cash over to the experts to earn a profit on it for them, go ahead.

 

OK. I'm going to guess that you're making somewhere around

[David]

I also own my house, and own another property that I rent out as well, which will see me okay in the future.

 

I was talking purely in terms of a pension, not my total wealth in later life.

[David]

It would appear that Nick Griffin may be ousted as leader of the BNP;

 

Four candidates have declared their intention to stand for the position of leader of the British National Party this year, including the current leader Nick Griffin MEP.

 

The three other challengers are, in alphabetic name order, Derek Adams, Richard Barnbrook AM and Eddy Butler.

The main challengers to his throne can be seen here.

 

If Griffin get's ousted, it could signal the end of the BNP's small increase in popularity, couldn't it?

 

He's been the driving force behind it I think.

[BionicRedneck]

If Barnbrook becomes leader, I hope he does a celebratory dance.

[Glen Quagmire]

It would appear that Nick Griffin may be ousted as leader of the BNP;

 

Four candidates have declared their intention to stand for the position of leader of the British National Party this year, including the current leader Nick Griffin MEP.

 

The three other challengers are, in alphabetic name order, Derek Adams, Richard Barnbrook AM and Eddy Butler.

The main challengers to his throne can be seen here.

 

If Griffin get's ousted, it could signal the end of the BNP's small increase in popularity, couldn't it?

 

He's been the driving force behind it I think.

Dunno, the BNP racked up nearly three times the vote in this year's General election compared to 2005. If that's considered a failure, then someone else other then Griffin could end up taking their increase in popularity even further. The main problem with the structure of the BNP is its hierarchy, the leader has the final say at all times - they'll need to start modifying this to allow for at least some internal dissent to debate policy. The only other two parties I know of with a similar structure are the DUP and Sinn Fein.

 

Personally I don't think Nick Griffin can take the BNP any further that it is now.

Edited July 19, 2010 by Glen Quagmire

[d-d-d-dAz]

Anyone got any interest in the Labour leadership contest?!

 

As a party member, nowadays, I get to exercise my vote in September. I've been to a few meetings with some candidates, including David Miliband and Ed Balls. Going to one next week with Ed Miliband, and will try and make the other two if I can. Though, i've discounted Burnham because he lacks authority, presence and lacks a clear stance. Abott didn't even come onto my radar, I don't think a shift to the hard left (especially as she lacks consistency within her own beliefs) is for the best of the party.

 

So far, I'm backing Balls.

[David]

Anyone got any interest in the Labour leadership contest?!

Not really, no.

 

It doesn't really matter who get's in, it'll be the same old shit anyway.

[TheAdder]

Anyone got any interest in the Labour leadership contest?!

Not really, no.

 

It doesn't really matter who get's in, it'll be the same old shit anyway.

 

Depends on how you choose to look at it, certain things are always going to be done by Government and change is probably only ever going to be small, unless you fancy starting a revolution. But small changes can start to push things in the right direction.

 

A leader can make or break a party, really quite easily, so Labour's next leader will shape their future elect-ability.

 

Going back to the small changes thing; there are more and more of these happening and announcements are happening all the time, lots of these will have a direct impact on people, sadly this won't always be entirely good sorts of impact at least in the short term.

 

Looking at the economy thing there's been a very idealogical difference there; Labour to spend and then make lighter cuts, Conservatives to really put the brakes on and make deep, deep cuts. I'm sure there's a happy medium there somewhere.