On 03/02/2012 16:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , charles
wrote:
In , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article4f2c0467.141281750@localhost, Cynic
wrote:
I see two perfectly reasonable solutions. The first is as I
mentioned - friends and relatives who do not work step in and help.
The second is for you to take out insurance to cover the possibility
that you will have to give up work due to your own or someone else's
disability.

Surely that's what NI does? And without a private company making a
profit?

No, that's what NI was supposed to do. It also seems to make a loss for
the state (ie taxpayer)

So would you privatize it while making it compulsory?

It already IS compulsory, unless you can tell us how to opt out of NI
payments on income. The reason that it's such a bloody mess is that
there's no incentive to make it work properly as it's far easier just to
sting taxpayers for more. Things are highly unlikely to get worse if the
cold dead hand of the state is taken out of the equation.

The State Pension, for example, is based on no sound economic principle,
just sheer stupidity and money wasting rather than the use of actuarial
principles.

The snag with
voluntary schemes is many will just take the risk it won't happen to them.
Look at what is happening to pensions in the UK now so many employers have
pulled out of providing them without choice to their employees.

Take our former industry, Charles. At one time the majority working in it
were staff and could look forward to a company pension. This is not the
case now, and many industries are the same.


Hmm, something to do the ongoing £5billion a year theft from what were,
previously, viable schemes.

the majority will only have a sate pension plus any savings to live on.
Because they have been given the choice, and chose to have jam now. I'm
glad I won't be around to see it.


That "jam" has already been taken - due to the abolition of ACT - for
political reasons and the "restructuring" of society.



--
Moving things in still pictures