On 05/02/2012 10:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
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.

Quite. So replacing it with a private scheme will be of no use unless it
is compulsory to have cover. Leave it up to the individual, and too many
will decide against. After all, youngsters live for ever. ;-)

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.

Wish I had your confidence it would get better. If you look at the US
health insurance, they pay approximately 3 times per head that the NHS
costs us - and although it may work well for the rich, it certainly
doesn't for the poor.

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.

What do you mean by that?
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.

So there will be no 'theft' from private schemes in the way of profits and
charges? You must live in a different world...

Thank you for summing up a typical Socialist viewpoint where "profit" is
synonymous with "theft" in your dictionary. However, without such
profit, and the tax paid on it, there would be no State! This could well
explain the unlimited "success" of the Cuban, East German and Bulgarian
economies, to name but a few.

The UK's financial and professional services generated a trade surplus
for the British economy of £40billion in 2010, whilst the financial
services employ 1.9 million people, of whom more than two-thirds work
outside London. Taxation imposed on the sector was £63billion - which
equates to 12% of all Government tax receipts - this is more than the
budget of the Department for Education.

Without success such as this we could not afford to have a Department of
Education and many other things besides. What is your suggestion - that
we print more money instead?

I find the it interesting, given the initial total opposition of the
medical profession to the proposed NHS, that they can have their views
so comprehensively changed by just by having oodles of public money just
thrown at them, regardless of any efficiency in the process, or the outcome.

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.

ACT?


Advance Corporation Tax.

--
Moving things in still pictures