News0 min ago
The Con Party.
Watching Duncan Smith on Sky News, He said that Osborne will go down in History as one of the Greatest Chancellors ever. Does anyone on AB agree with Mr Smith
Answers
The Labour party did what necessary to correct the excesses created by Thatcher when she removed all restrictions and credit and borrowing. If they hadn't have done that, the situation would have been catastrophic
15:30 Sun 23rd Mar 2014
As usual the left are deluded and so blinkered and blinded by pure hatred of thatcher they fail to see the obvious.
Osborne great. No, not at all. He should have carved up the civil service and simplified the tax system, that would not have cost money it would have saved millions. But he was of course shackled by the liberals. Although having said that I do have a lot of time for Alexander.
Osborne great. No, not at all. He should have carved up the civil service and simplified the tax system, that would not have cost money it would have saved millions. But he was of course shackled by the liberals. Although having said that I do have a lot of time for Alexander.
-- answer removed --
// we cannot carry on spending like the last party did. //
Osborne has borrowed more money in 4 years than Labour did in their 13 years in power.
http://
Osborne has been one of the worst chancellors ever. The economy has been stagnant for 4 four years. To pay for the lack of growth he has borrowed irresponsibly.
Osborne has borrowed more money in 4 years than Labour did in their 13 years in power.
http://
Osborne has been one of the worst chancellors ever. The economy has been stagnant for 4 four years. To pay for the lack of growth he has borrowed irresponsibly.
What ever is written on here will have no effect on anything.At the end of the day pretty much all politicians,no matter what their party,will be feathering their own nests.The fact that politicians from earlier times looked more competent was due largely to the fact that not half the things we know now were in the public domain then,e.g. expenses claims,fact finding jaunts etc.Although I am no fan of this conservative government I am really concerned that if Milliband wins the 2015 election he will let Balls loose in the treasury and god help us all then.
Who's pension pots did Gordon Brown raid? Let me explain:
In 1997 the “New” Labour government was in true fashion, thinking up ways to increase tax revenue to carry out their “reforms”. Up until this point, company pension funds had enjoyed an important tax break on the financial investments they made in order to build up the capital from which employees could be paid when they retired. By long tradition, the funds paid no tax on the dividends they received from those investments. The view of Brown was that this concession had to stop. The tens of millions of people who paid into such corporate pension schemes - where employee contributions were, by and large, matched by their employer - were over-privileged, they argued. Further most of the schemes were in surplus and Brown determined they could easily take the hit of around £5 billion a year.
It has to be said that former Chancellor Norman Lamont had carried out a mini raid in 1993 when he reduced slightly the tax concession on dividends but this produced just a few mild murmurings in the pension industry and Brown used this change to justify his raid. It further has to be said that the Coalition has not seen fit to reverse Brown’s actions (but that is hardly surprising as I doubt the LibDems would allow it). But there is little doubt that Brown’s tax changes for pension schemes hastened the demise of considerable many final salary pension schemes and led to the considerable decrease in returns for annuities which people who had their own arrangements or who were members of “money purchase” schemes were forced to buy. Brown was warned of these potential problems but went ahead nonetheless.
For much of the 20th Century the UK’s pension schemes were the envy of the world. They may well have weathered the 2008 financial crisis far better (as they has weathered many crises in the previous 100 years) but for this ridiculous man’s arrogant stupidity.
“He did what was necessary to avert complete financial disaster for this country.” Yeah, it worked a treat didn’t it! There was no impending “complete financial disaster” on the horizon in 1997. Brown did what he did for purely ideological reasons.
In 1997 the “New” Labour government was in true fashion, thinking up ways to increase tax revenue to carry out their “reforms”. Up until this point, company pension funds had enjoyed an important tax break on the financial investments they made in order to build up the capital from which employees could be paid when they retired. By long tradition, the funds paid no tax on the dividends they received from those investments. The view of Brown was that this concession had to stop. The tens of millions of people who paid into such corporate pension schemes - where employee contributions were, by and large, matched by their employer - were over-privileged, they argued. Further most of the schemes were in surplus and Brown determined they could easily take the hit of around £5 billion a year.
It has to be said that former Chancellor Norman Lamont had carried out a mini raid in 1993 when he reduced slightly the tax concession on dividends but this produced just a few mild murmurings in the pension industry and Brown used this change to justify his raid. It further has to be said that the Coalition has not seen fit to reverse Brown’s actions (but that is hardly surprising as I doubt the LibDems would allow it). But there is little doubt that Brown’s tax changes for pension schemes hastened the demise of considerable many final salary pension schemes and led to the considerable decrease in returns for annuities which people who had their own arrangements or who were members of “money purchase” schemes were forced to buy. Brown was warned of these potential problems but went ahead nonetheless.
For much of the 20th Century the UK’s pension schemes were the envy of the world. They may well have weathered the 2008 financial crisis far better (as they has weathered many crises in the previous 100 years) but for this ridiculous man’s arrogant stupidity.
“He did what was necessary to avert complete financial disaster for this country.” Yeah, it worked a treat didn’t it! There was no impending “complete financial disaster” on the horizon in 1997. Brown did what he did for purely ideological reasons.
Gordon Brown did not ‘raid' or ‘steal' British pension funds. What he did in 1997 was to remove tax credits on share dividends by abolishing relief on Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT). This "relief" meant that fund-managers could claim back the tax paid on dividends from companies in which their funds owned shares.
Share dividends are, quite simply, UNEARNED income and why on earth should that go tax free when we all have to pay tax on our EARNED income and just about everything ELSE? Surely, if anything, unearned income should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income rather than a lower one!
The only people who did any actual ‘WORK' to create these dividends were the Bolivian tin-miners, Ceylonese tea-leaf pickers or whoever else toiled for companies chosen as investments by these fund-managers.
Norman Lamont and his side-kick at the time, David Cameron, did much the same to pension funds as Brown did when they reduced ACT from 25% to 20% just four years earlier. It is perfectly obvious that their action reduced the income flowing into funds, too. Why don't we ever hear any whining about that?
Earlier, Thatcher's government had offered "pension holidays" to companies...ie they could opt out of making employer's contributions to their own pension funds, though their workers continued paying in. Guess how many companies did just that! As examples, the BBC paid in less than was required for 14 years, the Post Office paid zilch for over a decade and Unilever did likewise for seven years!
What happened to the money that was meant to go to future pensioners? It disappeared into the pockets of company directors and investors. Very few of them were short of a bob or two, I'd say.
The same government encouraged individuals to leave their occupational pension schemes and make private arrangements which would be far better for them. Yeah...right! So why did most of them return to their occupational fold?
The Labour Party has absolutely nothing to apologise for in the matter of pensions.
Share dividends are, quite simply, UNEARNED income and why on earth should that go tax free when we all have to pay tax on our EARNED income and just about everything ELSE? Surely, if anything, unearned income should be taxed at a higher rate than earned income rather than a lower one!
The only people who did any actual ‘WORK' to create these dividends were the Bolivian tin-miners, Ceylonese tea-leaf pickers or whoever else toiled for companies chosen as investments by these fund-managers.
Norman Lamont and his side-kick at the time, David Cameron, did much the same to pension funds as Brown did when they reduced ACT from 25% to 20% just four years earlier. It is perfectly obvious that their action reduced the income flowing into funds, too. Why don't we ever hear any whining about that?
Earlier, Thatcher's government had offered "pension holidays" to companies...ie they could opt out of making employer's contributions to their own pension funds, though their workers continued paying in. Guess how many companies did just that! As examples, the BBC paid in less than was required for 14 years, the Post Office paid zilch for over a decade and Unilever did likewise for seven years!
What happened to the money that was meant to go to future pensioners? It disappeared into the pockets of company directors and investors. Very few of them were short of a bob or two, I'd say.
The same government encouraged individuals to leave their occupational pension schemes and make private arrangements which would be far better for them. Yeah...right! So why did most of them return to their occupational fold?
The Labour Party has absolutely nothing to apologise for in the matter of pensions.
George Osborne has been a disastrous chancellor. He's been promoting the idea of austerity and ignoring any facts which disagree with it.
He's also, as this article demonstrates, demonstrated a willing blindness to an extreme and unprecedented problem with the UK economy and has instead been more interested in feathering his own nest and vindicating his moronic ideology:
http://
And to anyone who wishes to rebut by pointing out how undesirable Labour is - that is completely irrelevant. The incompetence of Labour has absolutely nothing to do with the catastrophic way that Mr. Osborne has been wilfully wrecking the economy.
He's also, as this article demonstrates, demonstrated a willing blindness to an extreme and unprecedented problem with the UK economy and has instead been more interested in feathering his own nest and vindicating his moronic ideology:
http://
And to anyone who wishes to rebut by pointing out how undesirable Labour is - that is completely irrelevant. The incompetence of Labour has absolutely nothing to do with the catastrophic way that Mr. Osborne has been wilfully wrecking the economy.
Yes I quite agree, Kromo. Very often when I point out what a disaster the Coalition has been I simply get told that "the alternative is unthinkable". Still, as I suggested in an earlier post (cannot remember what it was about) many voters in the UK are reduced to voting for the mob they dislike the least - a fine endorsement for democracy!
Yes, QM, a "pension raid" is a little emotive I agree. However many people see Mr Brown's actions as precisely that. I fully agree that unearned income should be taxed (though I’m not quite sure why it should attract a higher tax rate than earned income). However, the dividends paid to pension funds are, strictly speaking, not “income” until they are paid to the funds’ pensioners. Then of course they are properly taxed. By taxing the income that the fund receives before it is paid out the Exchequer gets paid twice on the same lot of cash. But as I said in my earlier post, most Chancellors will devise ways to levy a tax any time money moves regardless of the apparent unfairness of the measure.
I’m not quite sure that too many people took up Mrs Thatcher’s suggestion that they should leave occupational pension schemes. In fact I don’t ever remember such encouragement being made but I may be wrong. Furthermore, I don’t consider the removal of tax relief from pension fund income a party matter. All politicians are equally culpable and you will note that in my earlier post I did lay blame on all governments since 1993. The Tories began the process, Labour finished it and the Coalition has done nothing to reverse it. It is not only occupational schemes which have taken this hit. People involved in individual money purchase schemes have been similarly affected as their fund’s income has also suffered the same hit.
This country is supposed (so we are told) to encourage individual self-sufficiency. One of the best ways individuals can provide for themselves in their dotage is to arrange for a decent pension to be paid to them when they stop work. Any move to reduce the sum they receive (which the measure certainly did) hardly endorses that encouragement. Especially when the cash taken is squandered.
Yes, QM, a "pension raid" is a little emotive I agree. However many people see Mr Brown's actions as precisely that. I fully agree that unearned income should be taxed (though I’m not quite sure why it should attract a higher tax rate than earned income). However, the dividends paid to pension funds are, strictly speaking, not “income” until they are paid to the funds’ pensioners. Then of course they are properly taxed. By taxing the income that the fund receives before it is paid out the Exchequer gets paid twice on the same lot of cash. But as I said in my earlier post, most Chancellors will devise ways to levy a tax any time money moves regardless of the apparent unfairness of the measure.
I’m not quite sure that too many people took up Mrs Thatcher’s suggestion that they should leave occupational pension schemes. In fact I don’t ever remember such encouragement being made but I may be wrong. Furthermore, I don’t consider the removal of tax relief from pension fund income a party matter. All politicians are equally culpable and you will note that in my earlier post I did lay blame on all governments since 1993. The Tories began the process, Labour finished it and the Coalition has done nothing to reverse it. It is not only occupational schemes which have taken this hit. People involved in individual money purchase schemes have been similarly affected as their fund’s income has also suffered the same hit.
This country is supposed (so we are told) to encourage individual self-sufficiency. One of the best ways individuals can provide for themselves in their dotage is to arrange for a decent pension to be paid to them when they stop work. Any move to reduce the sum they receive (which the measure certainly did) hardly endorses that encouragement. Especially when the cash taken is squandered.
Latest Posts
Technology2 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News5 mins ago
