Pensions Push Taxes Higher

[faceking]

"Irregardless.... "irregardless" is not a word... but whatever"

Jesus... do we have to go here, and I have to fucking school you...

Irregardless - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.

Owned. Bitch. Nice distraction from the economic folly that has came avail...Obamanomicbot.

 

[faceking]

Irregardless.... "irregardless" is not a word... but whatever

We haven't had best case scenarios in decades. The last 30 years have been put on the mastercard.

Someone is forgetting to remind Bill Clinton of that.... via his "alleged" balanced budget (read as : record spending amidst a "Mastercard" revenue stream). Bad analogy, perhaps as bad as using irregardless... please use "Visa" going forward, given their greater market share and they are a "client" of the FK.

 

[Stretch]

Irregardless... is a word dipfuck...look it up, and realize I use it to spite the pettiness of linguistics amidst a porn board. Back to the topic ya phony baloney....

Irregardless is certainly a word, in the sense that the letters form a word, but
in spite of your protestations, it's certainly not any part of the English language and not an accepted substitute for the proper word regardless, which is what you obviously meant...ain't it dipfuck?

 

[midlifebear]

Sorry, FaceQueen:

LOL! I'm hardly "owned" by a hobbled mind such as yours. You seem to only read enough to satisfy your prejudices. To quote the rest of your "free" Merriam-Dictionary information, "Irregardless [sic] . . . is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

And why use regardless instead? Because what is meant by dull, uneducated minds such as yours spouting the nonword is usually the word irrespective when one doubles up on the prefix ir. The prefix ir already notes no or not as does the suffix less. And despite your quaint usage of the nonword, double negatives are not grammatically correct in English. In Spanish, however, if you can use one negative in a sentence you can often use five. But you're not writing in Spanish. Point of fact, you can barely construct a sentence in what I'm presuming is your native language and probably believe should be made the "official" language of the United States of America, despite your inability to spell, write, and speak dialectical English properly.

Check out more than one source before you anchor your opinions in bad cement. For example check:

Irregardless | Define Irregardless at Dictionary.com
—Usage note
Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

Urban Dictionary: irregardless
This, of course, is one of my personal favorites. :smile: A word used by uneducated people intending to sound intelligent. Often, the defendant will use this word in court in an attempt to impress the judge and jury. Educated people notice and those who use this word instantly identify themselves to educated people as being uneducated.

And now a quick review of Standard Versus Nonstandard English

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/irregardless.aspx
Now, on to dictionaries. Although it's true that the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary all list the word irregardless, they also note that it's considered nonstandard. Listing a word as nonstandard is a way that dictionaries concede that a word is in common use, but isn't really a proper word. Standard language is defined as the language spoken by educated native speakers (1), but comprehensive dictionaries also include nonstandard words, dialect, colloquialisms, and jargon--words like ain't, conversate, and irregardless. It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it's there, they think it's fine to use that word every circumstance. It's the "Look, it's a word!" phenomenon. But you have to look a little further to see what kind of word it is, and if it's nonstandard in some way, then use it with caution. You'll sound uneducated if you go around saying things like I ain't gonna conversate with him irregardless of the consequences.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/irregardless.html
Regardless of what you have heard, “irregardless” is a redundancy. The suffix “-less” on the end of the word already makes the word negative. It doesn’t need the negative prefix “ir-” added to make it even more negative.

And doubtless you'll find embarrassing web sites that excuse the nonword as being "colloquial", "regional", and just plain homey. But those sites ain't right.

However, since we all know you so well here at LPSG you'll probably find comfort and succor in http://www.irregardless.org/ as well as http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm


Edit: And Faceperson, maybe you'd have a more pleasant demeanor if you didn't have so much unsecured debt hanging over your head.

 

[TomCat84]

I've gotten so down in recent months seeing our country's ills blamed on the $30K-80K/yr civil servant, rather than the big monied interests fucking us up the ass with no lube through tax loopholes, special insider development deals, etc. It's all so depressing.

 

[b.c.]

^ Depressing? It's damned right infuriating. All par for the course for the middle-classed "Joe Blow" - those of us who plod along showing up on the job daily, making enough to keep our heads above water. We're the one's carrying the load of the country's poorest AND richest, and we get shafted every step of the way.

We stay the course, pay our bills, insure our property, our vehicles, pay for medical insurance. And in turn we get shoddy coverage, half assed compensation for our losses, and piecemeal medical services.

We pay creditors on time every time and in return we get sky high APRs up the asshole, while they give out 9.5% to "new" customers who can barely wipe their own bums yet. NO problemo, because if they turn out to be bad debtors, those of us who pay will pick up the cost for those who don't.

If you're a reliable customer of a network provider, they'll "let" you upgrade for a mere couple-a-hundred if you want the newest equipment, and with a contract renewal. Meanwhile those who switch carriers every year (contract be damned) get the same hardware for little or nothing - as a "new customer" of course.

Hell will certainly freeze over if anyone will ever escape a student loan. No, those will follow us to the grave and beyond. Write offs, bail outs, forgiveness and such are reserved only for those who never pay, or those rich enough to skip through yet another loophole, not for the middle-class.

The taxman will fuck us over too, as they always have, and after a lifetime of that, during which they've taxed you paycheck and took out deductions for retirement, Social Security, Medicare, and whatever, you MIGHT, if you're lucky to live long enough, manage to get your OWN money doled out back to you in amounts that MIGHT allow you to keep one step out of the poorhouse.

All the same, along will come some lame brained half witted asshole who'll think that you're somehow getting over because you've managed to live long enough to be able to collect only some of that which they've pilfered from you throughout your entire FUCKIN' career. LOL.

Depressing? Dude, give it another 35 years.

 

[TomCat84]

^ Depressing? It's damned right infuriating. All par for the course for the middle-classed "Joe Blow" - those of us who plod along showing up on the job daily, making enough to keep our heads above water. We're the one's carrying the load of the country's poorest AND richest, and we get shafted every step of the way.

We stay the course, pay our bills, insure our property, our vehicles, pay for medical insurance. And in turn we get shoddy coverage, half assed compensation for our losses, and piecemeal medical services.

We pay creditors on time every time and in return we get sky high APRs up the asshole, while they give out 9.5% to "new" customers who can barely wipe their own bums yet. NO problemo, because if they turn out to be bad debtors, those of us who pay will pick up the cost for those who don't.

If you're a reliable customer of a network provider, they'll "let" you upgrade for a mere couple-a-hundred if you want the newest equipment, and with a contract renewal. Meanwhile those who switch carriers every year (contract be damned) get the same hardware for little or nothing - as a "new customer" of course.

Hell will certainly freeze over if anyone will ever escape a student loan. No, those will follow us to the grave and beyond. Write offs, bail outs, forgiveness and such are reserved only for those who never pay, or those rich enough to skip through yet another loophole, not for the middle-class.

The taxman will fuck us over too, as they always have, and after a lifetime of that, during which they've taxed you paycheck and took out deductions for retirement, Social Security, Medicare, and whatever, you MIGHT, if you're lucky to live long enough, manage to get your OWN money doled out back to you in amounts that MIGHT allow you to keep one step out of the poorhouse.

All the same, along will come some lame brained half witted asshole who'll think that you're somehow getting over because you've managed to live long enough to be able to collect only some of that which they've pilfered from you throughout your entire FUCKIN' career. LOL.

Depressing? Dude, give it another 35 years.

The Depressing part is seeing middle class folks buying the storyline of the rich hook, line, and sinker. Blah.

 

[houtx48]

pension fund have turned into Ponzi schemes the first ones to the trough is the only ones that get the money. And people are pissed at Madoff?

 

[D_Davy_Downspout]

Typical liberal folly... "it's a revenue problem, not a spending problem".

The public employee unions are destroying the US, like they do many European nations. The pension system is antiquated. Yet there are many liberals who feel corporate America isn't paying enough (even DIRECTLY... my gawd) into the public employee pension system.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.

California could solve it's entire problem by doubling property taxes, and they would still be below the national average.

You hate the working man, I get that. But your party claims not to.

 

[B_crackoff]

Being as this is a Universal Western problem (I hope there's ain't a corp called that!), the OP's comment is quite valid.

Pensions are not a Fixed Overhead! This isn't true in the public or private sector, especially in the case of final salary pension schemes (especially indexed linked ones)!

Having dealt with billion dollar pension shortfalls myself - anyone who says otherwise knows nothing, & I would direct them to any major organisations accounts (under the notes pension liablities & shortfalls!).

About 3-4 years ago, Governments, & companies suddenly wised up to the fact that they had been using completely outdate, & therefore crap, actuarial assumptions.

In short, if you lived to 65 - you were likely to live another 22-24 years - not 15-16.

This may not seem like a lot - but it truly was an "oh fucking shit" moment. It literally meant that pension provision needed to be increased by 50%.

Now Governments don't generally even bother to save for pensions, it remains an off balance sheet liability, but companies have to - & depending on where the market was, make massive provisions for deficits.

The retirement of baby boomers creates an even bigger headache - as they comprise the highest proportion of these defined benefit schemes - & a larger wedge of those are retiring, than those entering the workforce - hence - reduced services, or higher taxes to pay for them.

Now, these guys haven't actually paid for the value of benefits that they will receive - I think in the UK, the value is estimated at 180% more than put in.

Defined benefit schemes are a Ponzi scheme. You are paid not by average, but by the highest wage point (in real terms), so the system needs a never ending base expansion of the pyramid to support it (shareholders should vote for their immediate cessation, & therefore Joe Blow as well in the public sphere)- & if you have national economic troubles, that just becomes another headache.

E.g if you earned $20,000 for 39 years, & $100,000 for the final - your pension would be based on $100K - despite the fact that neither you, nor your organisation ever made a provision for that - & you hadn't bloody earned it!

It's almost impossible to get into a defined benefit scheme now this realisation has been made, & people of say, 55 & over are getting sometimes 5 times the contributions made to their pension pot as others(younger or newly employed) doing exactly the same job.

That's true discrimination!

Why should other generations pay for the luxuries of the people who've spunked it all away?

It's not about greed or envy - it's about fairness - especially to future generations, who will just be extremely indebted, & forced to pay off the ever increasing interest on a profligacy of the past that does not enrich them, but makes them poor indeed!

 

[Speculator]

Being as this is a Universal Western problem (I hope there's ain't a corp called that!), the OP's comment is quite valid.

Pensions are not a Fixed Overhead! This isn't true in the public or private sector, especially in the case of final salary pension schemes (especially indexed linked ones)!

Having dealt with billion dollar pension shortfalls myself - anyone who says otherwise knows nothing, & I would direct them to any major organisations accounts (under the notes pension liablities & shortfalls!).

About 3-4 years ago, Governments, & companies suddenly wised up to the fact that they had been using completely outdate, & therefore crap, actuarial assumptions.

In short, if you lived to 65 - you were likely to live another 22-24 years - not 15-16.

This may not seem like a lot - but it truly was an "oh fucking shit" moment. It literally meant that pension provision needed to be increased by 50%.

Now Governments don't generally even bother to save for pensions, it remains an off balance sheet liability, but companies have to - & depending on where the market was, make massive provisions for deficits.

The retirement of baby boomers creates an even bigger headache - as they comprise the highest proportion of these defined benefit schemes - & a larger wedge of those are retiring, than those entering the workforce - hence - reduced services, or higher taxes to pay for them.

Now, these guys haven't actually paid for the value of benefits that they will receive - I think in the UK, the value is estimated at 180% more than put in.

Defined benefit schemes are a Ponzi scheme. You are paid not by average, but by the highest wage point (in real terms), so the system needs a never ending base expansion of the pyramid to support it (shareholders should vote for their immediate cessation, & therefore Joe Blow as well in the public sphere)- & if you have national economic troubles, that just becomes another headache.

E.g if you earned $20,000 for 39 years, & $100,000 for the final - your pension would be based on $100K - despite the fact that neither you, nor your organisation ever made a provision for that - & you hadn't bloody earned it!

It's almost impossible to get into a defined benefit scheme now this realisation has been made, & people of say, 55 & over are getting sometimes 5 times the contributions made to their pension pot as others(younger or newly employed) doing exactly the same job.

That's true discrimination!

Why should other generations pay for the luxuries of the people who've spunked it all away?

It's not about greed or envy - it's about fairness - especially to future generations, who will just be extremely indebted, & forced to pay off the ever increasing interest on a profligacy of the past that does not enrich them, but makes them poor indeed!

I just don't get it Crackoff, who on earth dreampt up the idea of a defined benefit pension scheme? It's total madness; a pension based not of what you've contributed but some arbitrary figure, underwritten by a magic money fountain. I though actuaries were supposed to be intelligent, yet as an industry they didn't see these coming years ago? Or they were so corrupt/inept they decided to turn a blind eye. A four year could have worked out what was going to happen.

Perhaps it's just another case of blatant intergenerational theft, I refuse to believe this was an accounting oversight.

 

[B_crackoff]

I just don't get it Crackoff, who on earth dreampt up the idea of a defined benefit pension scheme? It's total madness; a pension based not of what you've contributed but some arbitrary figure, underwritten by a magic money fountain. I though actuaries were supposed to be intelligent, yet as an industry they didn't see these coming years ago? Or they were so corrupt/inept they decided to turn a blind eye. A four year could have worked out what was going to happen.

Perhaps it's just another case of blatant intergenerational theft, I refuse to believe this was an accounting oversight.

Aha Speculator - it's just another case of heads in the sand - & electoral expediency. I did many quick calculations on the back of envelopes back in 2005 that turned out to be within £10Bn of the Govts Public Sector Pension Liablity estimate - published a few months ago (& it's not like it's an exact science)!

We still have the position that most State employees get a fantastic scheme, incredible employment rights, & ludicrously high sick leave & holidays.

E.g NHS scheme 1/80 of best of 3 final years salary - retiring at 60! (From the NHS Calculator!)

Lump sum £45,000, pension £15,000

Actuarial age of death average if 60 is 87+.

Full value of pension = (£15K*27)+£45K= £450,000 (NB this is index linked!!!!!!!! it increases every year)

Pension contribution required/annum theoretical =£450k/40 = £11,250 - equiv. to 11,250/30,000 = 37.5%-6.5%(personal contribution) = 31%!!!!!

HOWEVER - assume the recipient has worked their way up over 40 years from £15K to 30K - average wage assumed = £22,500.

Pension contribution required/annum more bloody likely = equiv. to 11,250/22,500 = 50%- 6.5% = 43.5%!!!!!

Even with the new NHS scheme 1/60 best salary, retirement at 65, & 40 years service, it's still a lot compared to the private sector.

87-65 = 22 years average pension @ 22*1/60 = (36.7%-6.5%) = 30% contribution required theoretical, but more bloody likely - 36.7% * 30,000/22,500 = (48.9%-6.5%)= 42.4%!!!!!!!!

AND THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BRING THE COST WELL DOWN! Fail!

For a private sector worker to get the same, progressing from 15,000 to £30K the same way, they'd need a pension pot of £440,000! That's 11,000/year contributions to find, while the average private company contribution is 6%!

That's about £9,000/ann in personal contributions unless you are spectacularly lucky with the stockmarket...& it's not guaranteed!

Public sector pay, conditions outstrip private sector, report says - Telegraph

On average, the public sector employ earns 10% more, works 23% less time (holidays & sick etc) & gets even conservatively 25% more pension contribution, so their total pay & benefits ARE AT LEAST 60% More than the private sector.

Even if you had a level average salary, they would still benefit by about 50% more/ hour, & possibly over 80%!

All of this secure & gold plated - riskfree.

You may see some figures in the press as slightly less, & this is because they don't bloody include death in service lump sum, widows, & dependents benefits, nor do they add on the long term sickness benefits.

The Unions will claim that the average pension is £7k - but that just relates to length of service - not the bunce that's added on top.

And if all service industries put their prices up to match these benefits - guess who'd be first to strike because of the concomitant inflation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The private sector has to compete globally in the real world. Either Govt services should become privatised, or they should cut the benefits, or tax it out upon retirement ( and here may I suggest a social justice tax!)

 

[Speculator]

Aha Speculator - it's just another case of heads in the sand - & electoral expediency. I did many quick calculations on the back of envelopes back in 2005 that turned out to be within £10Bn of the Govts Public Sector Pension Liablity estimate - published a few months ago (& it's not like it's an exact science)!

We still have the position that most State employees get a fantastic scheme, incredible employment rights, & ludicrously high sick leave & holidays.

E.g NHS scheme 1/80 of best of 3 final years salary - retiring at 60! (From the NHS Calculator!)

Lump sum £45,000, pension £15,000

Actuarial age of death average if 60 is 87+.

Full value of pension = (£15K*27)+£45K= £450,000 (NB this is index linked!!!!!!!! it increases every year)

Pension contribution required/annum theoretical =£450k/40 = £11,250 - equiv. to 11,250/30,000 = 37.5%-6.5%(personal contribution) = 31%!!!!!

HOWEVER - assume the recipient has worked their way up over 40 years from £15K to 30K - average wage assumed = £22,500.

Pension contribution required/annum more bloody likely = equiv. to 11,250/22,500 = 50%- 6.5% = 43.5%!!!!!

Even with the new NHS scheme 1/60 best salary, retirement at 65, & 40 years service, it's still a lot compared to the private sector.

87-65 = 22 years average pension @ 22*1/60 = (36.7%-6.5%) = 30% contribution required theoretical, but more bloody likely - 36.7% * 30,000/22,500 = (48.9%-6.5%)= 42.4%!!!!!!!!

AND THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BRING THE COST WELL DOWN! Fail!

For a private sector worker to get the same, progressing from 15,000 to £30K the same way, they'd need a pension pot of £440,000! That's 11,000/year contributions to find, while the average private company contribution is 6%!

That's about £9,000/ann in personal contributions unless you are spectacularly lucky with the stockmarket...& it's not guaranteed!

Public sector pay, conditions outstrip private sector, report says - Telegraph

On average, the public sector employ earns 10% more, works 23% less time (holidays & sick etc) & gets even conservatively 25% more pension contribution, so their total pay & benefits ARE AT LEAST 60% More than the private sector.

Even if you had a level average salary, they would still benefit by about 50% more/ hour, & possibly over 80%!

All of this secure & gold plated - riskfree.

You may see some figures in the press as slightly less, & this is because they don't bloody include death in service lump sum, widows, & dependents benefits, nor do they add on the long term sickness benefits.

The Unions will claim that the average pension is £7k - but that just relates to length of service - not the bunce that's added on top.

And if all service industries put their prices up to match these benefits - guess who'd be first to strike because of the concomitant inflation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The private sector has to compete globally in the real world. Either Govt services should become privatised, or they should cut the benefits, or tax it out upon retirement ( and here may I suggest a social justice tax!)

That's some seriously impressive number work! The complexity of the pension system has prevented me from getting to the bottom of it for a long time time now; unfortunately the info tends to send me to sleep. As a result I don't even really understand how the NI system works, so as a lowly PAYE worker I have no idea whether they're taxing me correctly or not. This of course leaves the whole system open to abuse; an untenable situation in a so called democracy.

The entire pension industry is in need of serious reform, and as a start I like IDS's stance on the standard state pension; instead of having two or three systems with some income streams dependent on means testing just have one universal system; this is simple and effective. But it doesn't go far enough, private contributions have been used as effective rebates for higher earners for a long time now which is another loophole inacessible to the poor. I would get rid of the entire thing but offset it with lower (or zero) taxes on savings and dividends; this levels the field and reduces the deadweight accountancy aspect.

Tbh I reject the entire concept of a pension; it's turned out to cause more suffering than it relieves as well as being a boon for "tax experts", the real winners are companies like PwC. It all needs to go, simplify, simplify, simplify. Please!!

 

[B_crackoff]

That's some seriously impressive number work!

Cheers - it wasn't bloody quick to do:wink:!

The complexity of the pension system has prevented me from getting to the bottom of it for a long time time now; unfortunately the info tends to send me to sleep. As a result I don't even really understand how the NI system works, so as a lowly PAYE worker I have no idea whether they're taxing me correctly or not. This of course leaves the whole system open to abuse; an untenable situation in a so called democracy.

The entire pension industry is in need of serious reform, and as a start I like IDS's stance on the standard state pension; instead of having two or three systems with some income streams dependent on means testing just have one universal system; this is simple and effective. But it doesn't go far enough, private contributions have been used as effective rebates for higher earners for a long time now which is another loophole inacessible to the poor. I would get rid of the entire thing but offset it with lower (or zero) taxes on savings and dividends; this levels the field and reduces the deadweight accountancy aspect.

Tbh I reject the entire concept of a pension; it's turned out to cause more suffering than it relieves as well as being a boon for "tax experts", the real winners are companies like PwC. It all needs to go, simplify, simplify, simplify. Please!!

Spec- It's not that complex (see my examples), though high & low earners should both have the same basic rate of tax deductible pension allowance - 20%(!), though really, they should drop NI by 3-4% & raise IT by the same amount - and tax our freebie loving current pensioners, whilst allowing the workers supporting them to save a few pennorth more!

I've met IDS - nice man -his hearts in the right place, but hmm; I also met 20 pints a day Hague (& have a picture with him!) - more intelligent, but noooooooooo!:wink:

I really tried to make my calculations as transparent as possible - & defy anyone to knock them. They are sooooo easy to work out, & sooo easy to verify.

I'm sorry that you're on PAYE - as someone who knows Kent very well, that's not so hot - but at least you're employed, & frankly you sound like one of the masses (i.e. the bright) who would have left - you really should consider that!

I could tell you a hundred reasons why a single level state pension is wrong, & completely inequitable - not least pensioners migrating here, & people who have worked getting the same as those who have not(!), but those should be enough to reinforce the ideas I know we share - you should only get back, what you put in( Civic responsiblity).

Of course, those that have never put in, get perpetually free accommodation as well - IDS's schemes doesn't address that at all, & God help you if you ever saved any money for a rainy day!

We might as well spunk it all on JD's, lapdancers, & filthy menage a trois, for all the good abstinence from such acts would do us in our dotage! Why pay for a nursing home in 50 years, when you can have twins gobble you off today, & not be a penny worse off in the future?!

 

[Speculator]

Spec- It's not that complex (see my examples), though high & low earners should both have the same basic rate of tax deductible pension allowance - 20%(!), though really, they should drop NI by 3-4% & raise IT by the same amount - and tax our freebie loving current pensioners, whilst allowing the workers supporting them to save a few pennorth more!

I've met IDS - nice man -his hearts in the right place, but hmm; I also met 20 pints a day Hague (& have a picture with him!) - more intelligent, but noooooooooo!:wink:

I really tried to make my calculations as transparent as possible - & defy anyone to knock them. They are sooooo easy to work out, & sooo easy to verify.

I'm sorry that you're on PAYE - as someone who knows Kent very well, that's not so hot - but at least you're employed, & frankly you sound like one of the masses (i.e. the bright) who would have left - you really should consider that!

I could tell you a hundred reasons why a single level state pension is wrong, & completely inequitable - not least pensioners migrating here, & people who have worked getting the same as those who have not(!), but those should be enough to reinforce the ideas I know we share - you should only get back, what you put in( Civic responsiblity).

Of course, those that have never put in, get perpetually free accommodation as well - IDS's schemes doesn't address that at all, & God help you if you ever saved any money for a rainy day!

We might as well spunk it all on JD's, lapdancers, & filthy menage a trois, for all the good abstinence from such acts would do us in our dotage! Why pay for a nursing home in 50 years, when you can have twins gobble you off today, & not be a penny worse off in the future?!

I'm not questioning the figures, it's pretty clear who holds the greater grasp of the material; but the entire thing has baffled me for ages.

There are so many different dimensions to the humble pension that it makes it almost impossible to keep track and work out the best option, unless you happen to be a maths God of course and have a crystal ball handy so you know what tricks the coalition will pull. This is even more difficult right now given our current predicament.

This is why I'm so frustrated with it all:

There's the state pension (with constant tinkering to the no. of qualifying years needed), SERPS, S2P, the Graduated pension (SERPS precursor), pension credits which include savings credit and the guarantee credit. Then we have private/company pensions where you're able to either opt in or out -although from 2012 there will be an automatic opt in-, not forgetting the mountain of off balance sheet public pension debt that we've racked. I'm sure there are others aspects which I'm unaware of.

It's totally impenetrable to the average person and it's little wonder why the whole thing is in a mess! Even the pros have a hard time figuring out what's going on, when I mentioned Brown's dividend grab to a pension advisor at my former workplace (an "expert" brought in from an outside company) he didn't have a clue what I was talking about! I still don't know whether to curse him for not knowing his stuff or sympathise with his plight because of the complexity of the industry.

My solution would be to hack the lot off with an axe and encourage saving and investment with universal tax relief; with a bit of red tape reduction this could even help stimulate the economy as money sought out a new home in productive investment.

I agree with you on the drawbacks of a universal state pension, if something like this were to be implemented we'd have to withdraw from the EU to stop benefit migrants, oh well :wink:

IDS does seem like a nice bloke too, but if I were to pick any politician to have a beer with it would have to be Nigel "just who do you think you people are" Farrage, the drinks would be on me of course.

 

[B_crackoff]

It's totally impenetrable to the average person and it's little wonder why the whole thing is in a mess! Even the pros have a hard time figuring out what's going on, when I mentioned Brown's dividend grab to a pension advisor at my former workplace (an "expert" brought in from an outside company) he didn't have a clue what I was talking about! I still don't know whether to curse him for not knowing his stuff or sympathise with his plight because of the complexity of the industry.

IDS does seem like a nice bloke too, but if I were to pick any politician to have a beer with it would have to be Nigel "just who do you think you people are" Farrage, the drinks would be on me of course.

Unfortunately, even the best "professionals" suffer a malaise known as "general ignorance". I would guarantee you that 95+% of qualified finance employees do not know that when you borrow from a bank (loan or mortgage), you borrow nothing at all, but instead create by yourself the financial instrument that brings the debt into being.

If you retire, having spent not a cent on paying off your mortgage, or providing for a pension - you'll get £140/week plus your mortgage interest paid for you, as long as you've spunked your money on living the good, good life, or have invested it in illiquid assets, such as a Van Gogh, vintage sports cars etc.

The only pension plan scheme that would be truly equitable would be for every citizen to be enrolled in a new state pension scheme. Everyone would have the same percentage of their wages taken (up to a limit of about £80K), & the government would have to pay its public sector employees into the same pot ( which it doesn't bloody do now, & never has).

This amount would then form the basis of all new government loans, & capital expenditure, & taxes etc adjusted for surplus years. All funds above borrowing requirements would buy out existing government debt.

Therefore, eventually, the only public debt that would exist in the UK, would be to its citizens!

It sounds so simple, it is simple, & it would also bloody well work, & be visibly equitable to both pensioners, & the young. I call it the Crackoff solution!:biggrin1: No more bankers snatching funds, & no more reliance on manipulated markets.

Your choices are truly pot luck, but yes the earlier you start, the more you should have. I wouldn't be investing in any Govt. bonds though!

I like Nigel Farage; maybe I'll join UKIP. He smokes like a steam train & enjoys his drink, but I wouldn't want to climb into an aircraft with him.:smile:

 

[Speculator]

Unfortunately, even the best "professionals" suffer a malaise known as "general ignorance". I would guarantee you that 95+% of qualified finance employees do not know that when you borrow from a bank (loan or mortgage), you borrow nothing at all, but instead create by yourself the financial instrument that brings the debt into being.

I would have to agree with you on that, on various forums I've even heard economics graduates say they havn't learnt this stuff! It took me ages to get my head around the conecpt, my brain simply wouldn't believe it.

The only pension plan scheme that would be truly equitable would be for every citizen to be enrolled in a new state pension scheme. Everyone would have the same percentage of their wages taken (up to a limit of about £80K), & the government would have to pay its public sector employees into the same pot ( which it doesn't bloody do now, & never has).

This amount would then form the basis of all new government loans, & capital expenditure, & taxes etc adjusted for surplus years. All funds above borrowing requirements would buy out existing government debt.

Therefore, eventually, the only public debt that would exist in the UK, would be to its citizens!

This would make a lot more sense than the 7-8 schemes we have running concurrently atm, it would also help relieve the problem of gold plated public sector pensions.

My personal favourite theory for reducing the national debt would be to stop the BofE buying up gov't bonds, allow yields to rise and values to fall and then for the state to covertly buy back their own bonds at below face value, if the ratings agencies downgraded us so much the better! Ideally the purchases would be at the expense of foreign investors, there's no point in fleecing British pension funds only to bail them out later when they find out they're bankrupt.

Higher IRS would also have the beneficial effect of lowering house prices, something that I've prayed for for a v.long time.

I like Nigel Farage; maybe I'll join UKIP. He smokes like a steam train & enjoys his drink, but I wouldn't want to climb into an aircraft with him.:smile:

The company he used for the aircraft hire were based in my old hometown in Surrey, oh the shame of it!

 

[B_crackoff]

Unfortunately, house prices will get lower ( especially in real terms), but that will be married to higher interest rates. So we're all screwed either way.

You'd have to be very lucky to get the price on the dip, with interest rates low, & it would be impossible to get a decent long term fixed rate, which is the only way to go, & is my recommendation NOW to anyone with a mortgage.

Re: government debt, there's no reason that we couln't just default, or create a new currency, solely to pay off the debt, & inflate it away over night.

But we are in the hands of idiots suckling at the teat of the financiers who get rich by doing nothing except wallowing in our pain.

Exactly what type of field are you working in, or are working towards being in?

 

[Drifterwood]

Unfortunately, house prices will get lower ( especially in real terms), but that will be married to higher interest rates. So we're all screwed either way.

Good.

Over inflated house prices is bollocks economics.

 

[B_crackoff]

Good.

Over inflated house prices is bollocks economics.

True, but in a fiat currency society, that inflation is caused by the expansion of debt. When house prices fall, not only are we a helluva lot poorer as a nation because so much "wealth" is tied up therein, but the debt remains, & with interest rates to rise soon, that's a double penetration to most people's lives.

All over Europe & the world, the banks allowed debt to be created just to cream off some bunce, & get more debt slaves.

It's hardly a useful form of capital management. Then again, the debt would never have been created for anything useful.:frown1:

A house tripling in value in a decade of low general inflation is just nuts. It's still the same f*cking house after all!