Everybody Who Voted For The Tories Got Exactly What They Deserved

[Insane]

3 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Final salary pensions were unsustainable, as has already been pointed out to you. Us workers are paying to support the schemes that would otherwise be underwater.

No they were not , not until Brown Taxed the dividends. This has already been pointed out to you now go and look it up. 

How can you workers be supporting the schemes when they are not there any more ? Workers pay into money purchase schemes now and what is in each individuals pot will be paying for their pension no one else will be paying it , so stop playing the pension paying Victim. 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

45 minutes ago, Insane said:

No they were not , not until Brown Taxed the dividends. This has already been pointed out to you now go and look it up. 

How can you workers be supporting the schemes when they are not there any more ? Workers pay into money purchase schemes now and what is in each individuals pot will be paying for their pension no one else will be paying it , so stop playing the pension paying Victim. 

Not one worker ever paid in enough to support a final salary scheme off their own back. Not one. 

[Insane]

24 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Not one worker ever paid in enough to support a final salary scheme off their own back. Not one. 

Proof !!!

[nickb1]

6 minutes ago, Insane said:

Proof !!!

 

31 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Not one worker ever paid in enough to support a final salary scheme off their own back. Not one. 

How about the worker who died the year after retirement? I think that all FSPS means is that your retirement income is directly related to your final salary, it doesn't say anything about how generous it is, though they tended to be quite generous in comparison with todays pensioner poverty / stock market gamble "defined contribution" ones. Also, under the previous normal arrangements, current workers were paying the pensions of the retired generation. In return they would be supported by the next generation of workers. A kind of extended reciprocity. Why then should one's pension be financed by one's own efforts?

[Insane]

11 minutes ago, nickb1 said:

How about the worker who died the year after retirement? I think that all FSPS means is that your retirement income is directly related to your final salary, it doesn't say anything about how generous it is, though they tended to be quite generous in comparison with todays pensioner poverty / stock market gamble "defined contribution" ones. Also, under the previous normal arrangements, current workers were paying the pensions of the retired generation. In return they would be supported by the next generation of workers. A kind of extended reciprocity. Why then should one's pension be financed by one's own efforts?

Not quite true. 

People in final salary pensions paid in , their employer paid in and there was tax relief on contributions.  

The funds built up and people retired they had paid in all their working life and the benefits of the fund paid their pensions. Those still working paid in and the contributions kept the funds solvent. Enabling them to draw their pension when their turn came round. It was never a case of what comes in today goes out today to existing pensioners. Unlike the public sector. 

The sound bite " current workers were paying the pensions of the retired " is a bit of an urban myth when we are talking about company and private schemes the funds they had paid into paid their pensions. In the public sector yes but that was not what I was talking about when I stated Gordon Browns Tax raid killed the final salary schemes. 

Today the employee employer and tax relief pay into the defined contribution as you say it is a gamble. What I find strange on here is the younger people who say good riddance to the final salary schemes and are quite happy that Brown killed them off as it was older people who were getting them, what they don't understand is that if they had not been killed off they could have had one as well in time.   

[Pop321]

18 minutes ago, Insane said:

Not quite true. 

People in final salary pensions paid in , their employer paid in and there was tax relief on contributions.  

The funds built up and people retired they had paid in all their working life and the benefits of the fund paid their pensions. Those still working paid in and the contributions kept the funds solvent. Enabling them to draw their pension when their turn came round. It was never a case of what comes in today goes out today to existing pensioners. Unlike the public sector. 

The sound bite " current workers were paying the pensions of the retired " is a bit of an urban myth when we are talking about company and private schemes the funds they had paid into paid their pensions. In the public sector yes but that was not what I was talking about when I stated Gordon Browns Tax raid killed the final salary schemes. 

Today the employee employer and tax relief pay into the defined contribution as you say it is a gamble. What I find strange on here is the younger people who say good riddance to the final salary schemes and are quite happy that Brown killed them off as it was older people who were getting them, what they don't understand is that if they had not been killed off they could have had one as well in time.   

I was lucky enough to have DB scheme. I paid about 7% into that and around 50% into my AVC DC scheme during my last 10 years. The DC contributions were part matched up to 10%. The employer hadn’t paid into our DB scheme for years, closed it to new members about 15 years ago and capped it based on current salaries around 2011 and it stands now with billions in it....

I found the true value of my DB scheme when I left. I could take it at 50 (it was a rare protected scheme) and whilst my pension per year was small with penalties for taking it before 65 quite harsh. However, I was offered a massive transfer value....and I say that having been used to having savings and personally dealing with big numbers, so I was surprised to be offered 50 years pension in one lump (albeit based on a heavily penalised lower pension).

The issue behind all this and the closure of DB scheme has a little to do with longevity etc but the reality is the goalposts have changed massively. Interest rates and investment yields are so low that DB schemes like ours are hugely asset rich but still struggle to meet the liabilities of pensions because they struggle to get a return in that capital. Brown didn’t help, longevity doesn’t help but the current investment environment is a killer.  

[msi]

10 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

The issue behind all this and the closure of DB scheme has a little to do with longevity etc but the reality is the goalposts have changed massively. Interest rates and investment yields are so low that DB schemes like ours are hugely asset rich but still struggle to meet the liabilities of pensions because they struggle to get a return in that capital. Brown didn’t help, longevity doesn’t help but the current investment environment is a killer.  

This.  Shame some of the drooling loons hear cant get that...

Edited May 2, 2021 by msi
add underline

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

Proof !!!

The proof is that if they were viable and correctly funded we'd still have them. Durrr...

[ARENAPUA]

You can't blame the Tories specifically. 

Labour would do exactly the same - and actively promoted the house price boom of the 2000's.  Remember 110% mortgages?  Whose watch was that on.

And it was Labour who bailed out the banks in 2008, with no criminal prosecutions, and subsequent creation of moral hazard.

[Insane]

43 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

The issue behind all this and the closure of DB scheme has a little to do with longevity etc but the reality is the goalposts have changed massively. Interest rates and investment yields are so low that DB schemes like ours are hugely asset rich but still struggle to meet the liabilities of pensions because they struggle to get a return in that capital. Brown didn’t help, longevity doesn’t help but the current investment environment is a killer.  

Browns Tax Raid cost £100 - £150 billion by 2006 . The current investment environment was not about 20 + years ago when the companies started to close them. 

[Insane]

37 minutes ago, msi said:

Shame some of the drooling loons hear cant get that...

Shame you could have had one yourself if they had not closed them. You sound like a Turkey thanking Gordon Brown for Christmas. 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

15 minutes ago, ARENAPUA said:

You can't blame the Tories specifically. 

Labour would do exactly the same - and actively promoted the house price boom of the 2000's.  Remember 110% mortgages?  Whose watch was that on.

And it was Labour who bailed out the banks in 2008, with no criminal prosecutions, and subsequent creation of moral hazard.

And the Tory opposition were also as quiet as church mice on a Mother Theresa pilgrimage to Calcutta.

[msi]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

Shame you could have had one yourself if they had not closed them. You sound like a Turkey thanking Gordon Brown for Christmas. 

Taking my comment and using them is flattery indeed, thank you. 

[Young Turk]

On 4/30/2021 at 10:50 AM, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I think Brexit was one issue. But their was also the radical nature of Corbyns policies. Some of which I liked, but many of which I thought were mental. i think there was something re taxation of the self employed which would have hiked their tax massively. That was about 6 million voters alienated with a single policy.

I don't think that necessarily follows. Those self employed people would benefit from increased public spending. They might prefer not to pay higher tax, but as long as the benefits of other policies outweigh that tax increase they will be better off.

According to this article (Labour's tax raid on the self-employed - CapX) at 20k the extra tax would be 1k. Surely the value of all the benefits (free broadband etc.) would exceed 1k.

 

[Insane]

7 hours ago, msi said:

Taking my comment and using them is flattery indeed, thank you. 

Strange !!!

[Pop321]

9 hours ago, Insane said:

Browns Tax Raid cost £100 - £150 billion by 2006 . The current investment environment was not about 20 + years ago when the companies started to close them. 

Cant that decision be reversed in the 15 years since? You blame the puppets....right or left, just puppets. 

[Insane]

10 hours ago, Pop321 said:

Cant that decision be reversed in the 15 years since? You blame the puppets....right or left, just puppets. 

Well it could but there is not the will is there. Same old story one Government bring something in the opposition are against it but when they get in power they do not reverse it. 

I have heard it said many times house prices are rigged to keep the prices high and the worker working (the lengths people go to to keep the roof over the head) to pay for the house. The problem is for those in power as prices have sored and people's equity has built up to many ordinary people have become to comfortable , couple that with a Final Salary Pension and the workers have to much power and do not need to struggle any more. 

So it suited the Labour Government along with Companies big and small to destroy the Final Salary Pension Schemes. The Torys do not have any want or need to reverse it.  

What I find strange on here is the younger people who have been priced out of housing and will never get a Final Salary Pension are rightly incensed that they are unable to afford a house but clap their hands at the demise of the Final Salary Pension. 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

On 02/05/2021 at 19:11, Insane said:

No they were not , not until Brown Taxed the dividends. This has already been pointed out to you now go and look it up. 

How can you workers be supporting the schemes when they are not there any more ? Workers pay into money purchase schemes now and what is in each individuals pot will be paying for their pension no one else will be paying it , so stop playing the pension paying Victim. 

How does that work?  My dividends are subject to the same tax and my defined contribution scheme is creaming it?

Silly me, assume it needed to be low risk! Hence why it is underwritten by future workers.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Mikhail Liebenstein

[Insane]

12 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

How does that work?  My dividends are subject to the same tax and my defined contribution scheme is creaming it?

Silly me, assume it needed to be low risk! Hence why it is underwritten by future workers.

How does what work ? Can you explain what your actually asking or saying as what you have written does not make any sense. 

[dugsbody]

14 hours ago, Insane said:

What I find strange on here is the younger people who have been priced out of housing and will never get a Final Salary Pension are rightly incensed that they are unable to afford a house but clap their hands at the demise of the Final Salary Pension. 

You don't have to find it strange because it's a straw man.

We know we're never getting a final salary pension or a cheap house. The first because it was unsustainable in the face of low inflation and zero bound interest rates (for dividend tax is just a distraction). The second because it caused by the same thing as the first, zero bound interest rates.

Except, the schemes that do have guaranteed final salary pensions are not funded and must be covered by current workers, the young. So you should not find it strange that we are p1ssed that we must pay for these unsustainable schemes while not getting them ourselves.

And on top of that we have to listen to the same people who benefit from these schemes and cheap housing, pull the ladder up behind them, vote us out of the EU and blame everything on immigrants and foreigners.

You think you can do that and the youth will thank you for it? You really are missing reality.

[pig]

On 02/05/2021 at 22:06, ARENAPUA said:

You can't blame the Tories specifically. 

Labour would do exactly the same - and actively promoted the house price boom of the 2000's.  Remember 110% mortgages?  Whose watch was that on.

And it was Labour who bailed out the banks in 2008, with no criminal prosecutions, and subsequent creation of moral hazard.

Technically yes, personally though I see the GFC as a kind of Year zero after which there is no excuse for not being able to see hpi and easy credit as a problem.

It would be ‘unfair’ as that only means a couple of years of Labour after 2008. But the specific beef I’ve got with the Tories is that even after recognising the problem they went and poured petrol on the fire - htb and letting the banks off the hook.

Additionally imho ‘austerity’ was ideological rather than a genuine attempt to fix the economy - karaoke prudence for votes and an excuse for costly and damaging state shrinking, perversely saving today to rack up bills in the future.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

On 03/05/2021 at 01:03, Young Turk said:

I don't think that necessarily follows. Those self employed people would benefit from increased public spending. They might prefer not to pay higher tax, but as long as the benefits of other policies outweigh that tax increase they will be better off.

According to this article (Labour's tax raid on the self-employed - CapX) at 20k the extra tax would be 1k. Surely the value of all the benefits (free broadband etc.) would exceed 1k.

 

Lol. I'm pretty sure that you'd find most self employed people would feel that they are better placed to spend their money on "benefits to them" than the government are.

Unless they are IT consultants on one of the government mega projects of course.

[iamnumerate]

24 minutes ago, pig said:

Technically yes, personally though I see the GFC as a kind of Year zero after which there is no excuse for not being able to see hpi and easy credit as a problem.

It would be ‘unfair’ as that only means a couple of years of Labour after 2008. But the specific beef I’ve got with the Tories is that even after recognising the problem they went and poured petrol on the fire - htb and letting the banks off the hook.

Additionally imho ‘austerity’ was ideological rather than a genuine attempt to fix the economy - karaoke prudence for votes and an excuse for costly and damaging state shrinking, perversely saving today to rack up bills in the future.

Very true but sadly there are no parties anti HTB (hoping to be corrected). 

Which I find very depressing.

A lot of people who vote Tory don't really like the Tories that much they just dislike the other parties more.

I would love to live in the UK where all parties have been replaced by decent left and right wing alternatives.

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Very true but sadly there are no parties anti HTB (hoping to be corrected). 

Which I find very depressing.

A lot of people who vote Tory don't really like the Tories that much they just dislike the other parties more.

I would love to live in the UK where all parties have been replaced by decent left and right wing alternatives.

Amen to that. AFAICT no parties align with me on any issues I feel strongly about. That is depressing in the extreme because it makes the future look bleak indeed.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

22 minutes ago, pig said:

Technically yes, personally though I see the GFC as a kind of Year zero after which there is no excuse for not being able to see hpi and easy credit as a problem.

It would be ‘unfair’ as that only means a couple of years of Labour after 2008. But the specific beef I’ve got with the Tories is that even after recognising the problem they went and poured petrol on the fire - htb and letting the banks off the hook.

Additionally imho ‘austerity’ was ideological rather than a genuine attempt to fix the economy - karaoke prudence for votes and an excuse for costly and damaging state shrinking, perversely saving today to rack up bills in the future.

The Tories don't have any answer other than HTB. It's their ideology.

People need houses and social housing is not being built. Expecting the Tories to build council houses is like expecting a dog not to eat meat. It's against their nature.

So something needs to take the place of social housing, and that is HTB along with private tenancy.

The problem is not Tories being Tories, it's Labour not being Labour. If Labour are in for 10 years and act like Tories these are the kind of results you get after another 10 years of Tory policy. The balance is somewhere between the two.

As for austerity, I'm not sure it generally picks up votes. Surely it is easier to splash the cash and promise people the moon than it is to rein in spending. If Cameron and May hadn't rolled back the spending then there would have been stand out debt right at the time we plunged into covid, to take on another massive amount of debt. Spending has to keep out debt to GDP level consistent with other economies of our size and type. When/If it balloons above what comparable economies have it will be a disaster. I'm also hugely sceptical of the States ability to spend money wisely. There are umpteen projects on the go at any time that prove this.