On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:12:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Right.

There are two points though.

1) Final salary schemes are a rapidly vanishing phenomenon

They are indeed.

2) Brown is taking £5Bn a year out of pension schemes through

It's £7Bn now by the way.


taxation.

All saving schemes are taxed in one way or another.

But when I signed up for my irrevocable 35 year helter skelter ride,
pensions weren't, and they weren't when I put in several lots of 10k
lump sums, which were sequestered out of my access or control for the
next 18 years.

I dare say if you can arrange to have your salary paid in the Cayman
Islands or some similar wheeze, you can minimise it. Harodl Wislon had
a bit to say about this. Nothing much has been done about it though.

However a small company pension scheme like mine is a 35-40 year
contract. Mine was set up on a tax free basis, tax was to be paid when
you realised the investment, which IMO is the correct way to do it. If
the funds go down in subsequent years do you imagine GB will
re-imburse the pension funds? Eventual pensioners will pay income tax
on their pensions at the going rate, but under GB the pension funds
themselves will already have been taxed on the fruits of their
investments, before the pensioners get their pensions and pay PAYE on
them. This means that pensions will attract tax treatment which is
less favourable than earnings paid under PAYE.

Wherein lies the incentive for workers to make legitimate provision
for their retirement?? Or are we all supposed to be content with going
on the parish?

Effectively that is the case already, if a married couple don't retire
with a pension fund exceeding £180k they might just as well have paid
the tax on it and ****ed it away on 1 decent cruise per year and 3
short breaks in Benidorm, for 40 years. They would be no worse off.

This is , of course how Labour get their votes, from Mr/Mrs
Braindead-Scum

The fact is in my particular circs. GB moved the goalposts at the year
28 mark. There are substantial penalties for transferring out or even
switching funds within the same provider. I have no alternatives to
exercise.

GB could at least have the good grace to admit he imposed the tax when
equities (and equity based pension funds) were at the peak of a
bubble, annd now he can't manage without the revenue, so stories about
dishonoured pledges, 35-40 year contracts don't cut it, he *has* to
have the money.

Within a year or so the bubble had burst and it has gone downhill from
then on with 7-11, and then Enron USW, USW, USW. And the simple fact
is he cannot now do without the revenue because he has a socking great
big hole in his tax revenues which arisies from the fact that the
statistics about employment and the economy have been completelyl
bezzled .

It's the bit about you blaming taxation for the failure of some when that
just isn't so - without at least mentioning poor investment management and
excessive administration charges, etc.

Oh, we know about those, 2.5% / Year over forty years costs a
pensioner what??

If growth is 28%/annum (& it was at one time) it's not so significant.
But if growth is -8% , and the provider still takes his charges
nevertheless, and then GB raids the fund, we end up in the same
position my fund is in now. Essentially no growth in cash terms since
1988, but something like 1,000% inflation :-(

It's just at the outset we were told "The scheme is strictly
controlled by the inland revenue". Can't do this, can't do that, can't
do t'other" "After all we are responsible people".

The "Financial advisor" who told me that has gone bankrupt.

"It's all controlled by the government"

Like my arse.

DG