The Politics Thread 2020

[jono]

1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Assuming you know what us lefties don't is 'startling ducking ignorance' to be honest. Sick to death of it.

No mate I don’t , it’s just this suggestion that profit is wrong and as soon as someone makes a buck then they must be a shyster. where does the govt get it’s tax revenue from ?  .. profits ! and tax on people those profitable businesses employ. 
 

fine If you are on the left .. change the breaks , change the rates and allowances,  but the principal that a government redistributes a portion of the results of people’s labour and business endeavour stands.. but it has to have something to re distribute in the first place. Unless you want a closed command economy and govern by decree .. which has been tried before and failed miserably.

this cry of they shouldn’t get taxpayers money. In this crisis the govt is printing money and giving back to the tax payer so that that tax payer can survive in later years and be a net payer in to the system. .. it is a short term fix that is being done all over the globe. 

[Tamworthram]

11 minutes ago, ramit said:

Look at the aftermath.  Afhanistan and Iraq invaded.  There was no appetite for sending troops to war, 9/11 changed that immediately.  We must always ask the question to every event, large or small, who gains.

That's odd, i was able to read the whole thing and i never sign up for any news pages.  i can send you the text in a pm if you like.

Agreed, we should ask the questions but, whilst 9/11 may have helped the case for those that wanted to go to war, it's not necessarily evidence that 9/11 was a deliberate act in order to engineer the conflicts. A theory not a fact.

[jono]

31 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I think anyone who believes dividend distribution is a helpful redistribution of wealth via pension pots, rather than it representing the biggest transfer of risk from businesses and government onto individuals needs to step back and look at the system in its entirety.

Those lovely philanthropic corporations were just looking after us pensioners all along........

 

....er, maybe not eh? 

But if those corporations are paying the taxes that are due on their profits according to law and employing people on salaries that attract tax then what is wrong

If people want another system then they can vote for it .. there have been alternatives over time that look to have attractive packaging, but they all failed and along the way brought great misery. Where the people become pawns of the state rather than the state being answerable to its citizens 

[ramit]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Agreed, we should ask the questions but, whilst 9/11 may have helped the case for those that wanted to go to war, it's not necessarily evidence that 9/11 was a deliberate act in order to engineer the conflicts. A theory not a fact.

When we have concluded how absurd the official narrative of events was and is, we are not left with many alternatives.  War is a racket, the military industrial complex is very powerful indeed and it's not about winning wars, it's about creating wealth from wars.

[Tamworthram]

4 minutes ago, ramit said:

When we have concluded how absurd the official narrative of events was and is, we are not left with many alternatives.  War is a racket, the military industrial complex is very powerful indeed and it's not about winning wars, it's about creating wealth from wars.

Well that's one view and, no doubt some do benefit financially from conflict but, it's not a theory I particularly support.

[Van der MoodHoover]

29 minutes ago, jono said:

But if those corporations are paying the taxes that are due on their profits according to law and employing people on salaries that attract tax then what is wrong

If people want another system then they can vote for it .. there have been alternatives over time that look to have attractive packaging, but they all failed and along the way brought great misery. Where the people become pawns of the state rather than the state being answerable to its citizens 

Because pensions began as a moral obligation on employers to provide some level of benefit to staff in retirement. 

You need to distinguish between risk and cost. The now closed final salary schemes were very generous - and if its generous it costs more.

You could keep costs down by reducing the benefits,  but still underwrite the risk rather than transfer to a series of individuals who a)don't really understand it b) arent able or prepared to pay for advice on it. And who therefore are less well equipped than an employer to bear it.

As for voting for it....Come on......how far down the list of issues is this? And given that older people who vote in greater numbers have done very nicely thank you that isn't going to happen,!!!

I'm not sure what alternatives you're referring to - if its Thatcher personal pension "revolution " that was the vehicle for the great risk transfer.

Its complex and not a vote catcher, but that shouldn't prevent critical thinking and not just accept the status quo.

[AndyinLiverpool]

Taking money from government then paying out dividends is indefensible. People were rightly outraged when Eurotunnel did it and rail companies do it and that's not even at a time of national crisis. 

The wealthy don't have to come out and defend these payouts because there are always enough of the hoi polloi prepared to do their dirty work for them by going on about pension funds - if we don't let the rich take even more, we won't get our pensions? All that means is that the system is entirely wrong and needs changing.

 

 

[jono]

27 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Because pensions began as a moral obligation on employers to provide some level of benefit to staff in retirement. 

You need to distinguish between risk and cost. The now closed final salary schemes were very generous - and if its generous it costs more.

You could keep costs down by reducing the benefits,  but still underwrite the risk rather than transfer to a series of individuals who a)don't really understand it b) arent able or prepared to pay for advice on it. And who therefore are less well equipped than an employer to bear it.

As for voting for it....Come on......how far down the list of issues is this? And given that older people who vote in greater numbers have done very nicely thank you that isn't going to happen,!!!

I'm not sure what alternatives you're referring to - if its Thatcher personal pension "revolution " that was the vehicle for the great risk transfer.

Its complex and not a vote catcher, but that shouldn't prevent critical thinking and not just accept the status quo.

I think we are talking at cross purposes over two topics. 
 

I made the point that dividends go to pensions funds generally. Not a specific company pension fund. 
if you save money personally with a pension provider that provider invests that money in funds/aka a mix of companies as best it can to make that money grow and subsequently pay you a pension when you retire. Companies share values fluctuate but they pay dividends over time based on their profits . That dividend is part of what physically provides a paycheque for you in retirement. These days all that money you saved is yours - as it should be - and you can draw income from it as far as it goes but clearly if you take out more than you put in it will dwindle

Final salary schemes in the end did the same thing but came about when there was rampant growth so companies felt able to “guarantee” whatever deal they promised you. .. the reality check came when growth wasn’t as much as anyone thought it could be, companies didn’t put as much as they should into the company investment pot because things were seeming to be going so well and finally Gordon Brown changed the taxation rules which damaged the breaks that pension funds got on dividends. ( I’ll exclude the Maxwells of this world who were in short criminals who stole pension monies from their own employees ) All these factors changed the growth available fundamentally, so companies that previously seemed to have bulletproof pension funds with surpluses  could in reality no longer honour those guarantees. The better ones maintained those guarantees but closed the system to new entrants because they couldn’t make the sums add up. They simply reverted to .. save some money, we will invest it for you and at the end you can have whatever we managed to get from it 

 

but the bottom line is you can only get something if it is physically there in terms of realisable company value and the dividend it pays. Or revert to a state system which is in a bigger shortfall than most pension funds but to a certain extent the government can print money to cover it rather more easily than an investment fund ! 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

29 minutes ago, jono said:

I think we are talking at cross purposes over two topics. 
 

I made the point that dividends go to pensions funds generally. Not a specific company pension fund. 
if you save money personally with a pension provider that provider invests that money in funds/aka a mix of companies as best it can to make that money grow and subsequently pay you a pension when you retire. Companies share values fluctuate but they pay dividends over time based on their profits . That dividend is part of what physically provides a paycheque for you in retirement. These days all that money you saved is yours - as it should be - and you can draw income from it as far as it goes but clearly if you take out more than you put in it will dwindle

Final salary schemes in the end did the same thing but came about when there was rampant growth so companies felt able to “guarantee” whatever deal they promised you. .. the reality check came when growth wasn’t as much as anyone thought it could be, companies didn’t put as much as they should into the company investment pot because things were seeming to be going so well and finally Gordon Brown changed the taxation rules which damaged the breaks that pension funds got on dividends. ( I’ll exclude the Maxwells of this world who were in short criminals who stole pension monies from their own employees ) All these factors changed the growth available fundamentally, so companies that previously seemed to have bulletproof pension funds with surpluses  could in reality no longer honour those guarantees. The better ones maintained those guarantees but closed the system to new entrants because they couldn’t make the sums add up. They simply reverted to .. save some money, we will invest it for you and at the end you can have whatever we managed to get from it 

 

but the bottom line is you can only get something if it is physically there in terms of realisable company value and the dividend it pays. Or revert to a state system which is in a bigger shortfall than most pension funds but to a certain extent the government can print money to cover it rather more easily than an investment fund ! 

 

We weren't at x purposes but clearly different wavelengths. 

Not to worry.  You think it's a good thing, I think not. Let's leave it at that.

[Rev]

My MP not only decided to take only £45k of their salary, and donate the rest to local good causes, but has decided to use this interregnum to return back to the care work they previously carried out.

 

[jono]

4 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

We weren't at x purposes but clearly different wavelengths. 

Not to worry.  You think it's a good thing, I think not. Let's leave it at that.

Just re read your post, we might have some common ground .. I am not saying it’s a good thing, I am saying this is how it works and 2+2 has to equal 4

So what you are looking for is companies to provide a guaranteed final salary scheme but to be realistic about the benefits ? So for example 40 years gets you 1/3 of your average salary or something like that ? .. if that’s the case and actuaries are comfortable then yes .. fair enough .. good idea I agree. ...but there have to be caveats not everyone works for a company and in both cases regardless of folk calculating risks and what not .. bottom line the money has to come from somewhere .. I.e dividends .. you work for X corps .. you put in 5% your employer puts in 5% and all things being equal they should be able to pay you Z at the end of your time. .. they have invested your money in a mix of companies over a 40 year career and taken dividends from those companies as part of the growth need to fund the guarantee. .. I am totally with you in terms of let’s formalise this and not leave room for dodgy skimmers and advisors to take advantage of those not savvy enough ..BUT .. all things being equal was exactly what the actuaries thought two generations ago. .. the money has to grow somewhere if you want a guarantee that at least covers Inflation so that what you put in in year 1 is worth the same in year 40. There has to be profit, dividends on that profit and growth
 

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, ramit said:

19 terrorists who could not even fly a Cessna and armed with box-cutters overtook control of 4 large passenger jets, flew 2 of the planes into the World Trade Towers collapsing both in a free fall into their footprint and 1 into the Pentagon at a speed and angle deemed not possible by aviation pilots and engineers, leaving a neat hole in the side of the building, the 4th crashing into a forested area in Pennsylvania without leaving debris or even the engines for inspection.  A large building adjacent to the towers that was only hit by debris, building 7, free falls into it's footprint.  All this was directed by a madman in a cave in Afghanistan, who years later is killed by US special forces and then buried at sea.

If that sounds reasonable to you, then do carry on in your beliefs, but if you seek evidence of a conspiracy do your own work in supplying yourself with that evidence.  i will leave one link for you to get you going, a 14 year old one.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/sep/05/internationaleducationnews.highereducation

Well for starters, Bin Laden was not the supposed mastermind behind events.

 

[ramit]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well for starters, Bin Laden was not the supposed mastermind behind events.

 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed i suppose you mean.  USA invaded Afghanistan because they claimed that Taliban were shielding Bin Laden, who they had named along with his organization al-Qaeda as the chief architects behind 9/11.  In 2003 they arrested Khalid, waited until 2008 to charge him with war crimes and murder and he won't have his trial until sometime in 2021.

That they change their story later, doesn't alter the fact that it was Bin Laden who was named and was the reason for the invasion into Afghanistan.

[G STAR RAM]

21 minutes ago, ramit said:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed i suppose you mean.  USA invaded Afghanistan because they claimed that Taliban were shielding Bin Laden, who they had named along with his organization al-Qaeda as the chief architects behind 9/11.  In 2003 they arrested Khalid, waited until 2008 to charge him with war crimes and murder and he won't have his trial until sometime in 2021.

That they change their story later, doesn't alter the fact that it was Bin Laden who was named and was the reason for the invasion into Afghanistan.

Re the other points you made:-

I thought all of the 'pilots' had undertaken simulator training? Didnt they basically just turn the planes around and fly them in a straight line?

Didnt the towers collapse under their own weight? If so, not sure exactly how else you would expect them to fall?

Agree the collapse tower 7 draws suspicions.

What debris would you expect to be left from a plane nose diving to the ground at over 500mph? Take a look at the wreckage left by cars crashing at no more than 100 mph into each other...

[King Kevin]

1 hour ago, jono said:

40 years gets you 1/3 of your average salary or something like that

Most schemes were 60th schemes and the most you could retire on was 2/3 ths of your final salary .So 40 years would get 2/3 you could also take some as a lump sum and a reduced pension.

[ramit]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Re the other points you made:-

I thought all of the 'pilots' had undertaken simulator training? Didnt they basically just turn the planes around and fly them in a straight line?

Didnt the towers collapse under their own weight? If so, not sure exactly how else you would expect them to fall?

Agree the collapse tower 7 draws suspicions.

What debris would you expect to be left from a plane nose diving to the ground at over 500mph? Take a look at the wreckage left by cars crashing at no more than 100 mph into each other...

They proved incapable of flying a small plane, to hit a tiny target, tower with a passenger jet takes great skill at the least and i have read engineers reporting that it would not have been possible at the speed reported.

Yeah, right, collapsed under their own weight after explosions in the basements and thermite ignitions on every floor.

The engines are great chunks of metal, they would not disintegrate upon impact.

i am not in the mood to debate this issue further, my mother is now ill and i have other things on my mind.

Believe what you like

[1of4]

If the government of the day back in the seventies, hadn't passed the onus of providing a pension on to the private sector and ultimately down to each individual. Then the debate about company dividends funding private pension schemes would be a mute point.

The government back then should have increased the the amount it collected to fund a liveable old age pension. If they had we wouldn't have seen companies taking pension contributions holidays, people conned or wrongly advised so losing out on their pensions.

With the changes in how people are  now working, zero hours, the gig economy ect. The government realized that less and less people were not paying into a pension scheme so introduced Nest, a government controlled pension scheme. Shame this scheme wasn't introduced back in the seventies.

[A Ram for All Seasons]

10 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Would any Remainers like to give me their current thoughts on how the EU are coming together to serve their people. No whataboutery please; let’s try to stick to the question for a post or two.

The EU has reached an agreement and is coming together to serve its people: €240 billion from the European Stability Mechanism for states that have been particularly badly affected, credit guarantees to companies worth €200 billion from the European Investment Bank and a €100 billion program called Sure for laid-off workers run by the European Commission. Britain gets bugger all and the EU lives to see another day.

[i-Ram]

4 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

The EU has reached an agreement and is coming together to serve its people: €240 billion from the European Stability Mechanism for states that have been particularly badly affected, credit guarantees worth €200 billion from the European Investment Bank and a €100 billion program called Sure for laid-off workers run by the European Commission. Britain gets bugger all and the EU lives to see another day.

Thanks AFRAS. I will catch-up on the details tomorrow, but wouldn’t the UK be under some major liability/future contribution linked to these schemes if we were still ‘in’?

[A Ram for All Seasons]

1 minute ago, i-Ram said:

Thanks AFRAS. I will catch-up on the details tomorrow, but wouldn’t the UK be under some major liability/future contribution linked to these schemes if we were still ‘in’?

They all have to pay it back someday if that's what you mean. Britain is going to have to borrow from somewhere itself and pay it back, but will its conditions be better or worse?