On 2007-10-01 12:29:42 +0100, "
said:

On Sep 29, 8:44 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been for
Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the pensions
industry.

How did he do that, then? Pension funds collapsed due to the collapse
of shares after the .com boom and 9/11. The removal of dividend tax
credits can easily be compensated for by a small increase in
contributions, which employees or employers have had plenty of
opportunity to do.

It can be, by why should it be? People entered into pension schemes
encouraged by the government with a defined tax structure and for long
term investment.



Brown may have changed the way tax is applied to pension funds but no
one stole from the funds. It suits some people and sections of the
media to use very emotive language.


Theft is an emotive subject. Investors in pension funds have been
willing to accept the risks of the market. It is not reasonable for
the government to worsen the tax treatment, by however little, on this
type of investment. They will already receive income tax during the
payout phase as it is. The reality of the situation is that Brown saw
an easy to tap source of money that he hoped could be garnered with
little or no fuss. He was warned by the Treasury of the potential
outcome but proceeded anyway.

Nowadays he is claiming that he has done nothing wrong. Perhaps he'll
be able to fool some people with that...

In article . com,
wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:44 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been for
Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the pensions
industry.

How did he do that, then? Pension funds collapsed due to the collapse
of shares after the .com boom and 9/11. The removal of dividend tax
credits can easily be compensated for by a small increase in
contributions, which employees or employers have had plenty of
opportunity to do.

Brown may have changed the way tax is applied to pension funds but no
one stole from the funds. It suits some people and sections of the
media to use very emotive language.

Indeed. And previous to this tax many pension funds were awash with money
and giving themselves a contribution holiday as well as extra perks for
their *employees* etc. Had they used that extra to improve pensions
perhaps the government wouldn't have seen fit to introduce that new tax.

But since that excess had been achieved by allowing tax relief on
contributions in the first place I can see why a chancellor would seek to
get some of it back.

No one likes paying taxes. But it's a fact of life that every country has
them. If you seek to reduce one another will simply be raised - unless the
government actually cuts expenditure which is very unlikely despite the
claims made by some.

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
No-one has come out of the recent pensions debacle covered in glory.
Gordon Brown *did* rape the pensions industry; no politician can look at
sums of money belonging to others without thinking that they could spend
it much better then the people to whom it belongs. The companies *are*
motivated by greed and short-termism, exacerbated by stupid legislation
that pension funds are allowed neither to be in credit or deficit.
Trustees of pension funds are spineless "yes men". And the regulators
sat on their arses with their thumbs up their bums. Of course, most of
the people involved are insulated from the consequences of their own
actions, which doesn't help ...

You forget that pension contributions largely aren't subject to tax like
other personal income. And the amount you're allowed to invest is subject
to a limit and other controls. So if this pot was larger than needed I can
quite see why a chancellor should seek to remove some of the surplus
rather than let it be given only to shareholders and employees of the
pension company.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-10-01 20:12:47 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:55:14 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Theft is an emotive subject. Investors in pension funds have been
willing to accept the risks of the market. It is not reasonable for
the government to worsen the tax treatment, by however little, on
this type of investment.

You're asking for two one way bets he the government can lower taxes
but not increase them;

I think that that should always be an objective.


shareholders can have the benefit of a
contributions holiday when returns are better, but should not be
expected to pay more when they are worse. The 1997 change was coupled
with a 2% reduction in the rate of Corporation Tax.


Two stories on the BBC news page now show that some pension funds are
ahead of the game, others not:

"Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has temporarily suspended payments to its
pension scheme.

The "pension holiday" is a sign the fund - one of the biggest UK
pension schemes - has a healthy surplus."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7022648.stm


It would be very difficult for Shell *not* to be in this position.



"Pension schemes in deficit may still be underestimating how long their
pensioners will live, even when they have put in place a recovery
plan."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7014641.stm

Indeed, but it didn't need the government to make it worse.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:55:14 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Theft is an emotive subject. Investors in pension funds have been
willing to accept the risks of the market. It is not reasonable for
the government to worsen the tax treatment, by however little, on
this type of investment.

You're asking for two one way bets he the government can lower taxes
but not increase them; shareholders can have the benefit of a
contributions holiday when returns are better, but should not be
expected to pay more when they are worse. The 1997 change was coupled
with a 2% reduction in the rate of Corporation Tax.

Two stories on the BBC news page now show that some pension funds are
ahead of the game, others not:

"Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has temporarily suspended payments to its
pension scheme.

The "pension holiday" is a sign the fund - one of the biggest UK
pension schemes - has a healthy surplus."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7022648.stm

"Pension schemes in deficit may still be underestimating how long their
pensioners will live, even when they have put in place a recovery
plan."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7014641.stm

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:50:48 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
No-one has come out of the recent pensions debacle covered in glory.
Gordon Brown *did* rape the pensions industry; no politician can look at
sums of money belonging to others without thinking that they could spend
it much better then the people to whom it belongs. The companies *are*
motivated by greed and short-termism, exacerbated by stupid legislation
that pension funds are allowed neither to be in credit or deficit.
Trustees of pension funds are spineless "yes men". And the regulators
sat on their arses with their thumbs up their bums. Of course, most of
the people involved are insulated from the consequences of their own
actions, which doesn't help ...

You forget that pension contributions largely aren't subject to tax like
other personal income.

That's easy. it's not income. You can't get your mitts on it until you
retire, then you get an income and pay income tax on it. How can you
pay tax on income you haven't received ? Don't tell me = you put it on
your credit card, a typical Nulab idea.

And the amount you're allowed to invest is subject to a limit and other controls.

Yes this was controlled. If you comply with those controls (which were
stringent enough) written by the Inland Revenue that should suffice,
you don't want the chancellor coming along after 15 years worth of
contributions, pulling the plant up by the roots and taking cuttings
from the ones that are successful for himself.

So if this pot was larger than needed

But nobody could possibly know that given the possibility of rainy
days to come, unforcast longevity, terrorist incidents & such. The
Chancellor doesn't give it back if the fund runs into trouble, it's a
bit of a "one way pendulum" in that regard.

Income should be taxed as it is received.

Investments should be taxed when they are realised.

I can
quite see why a chancellor should seek to remove some of the surplus
rather than let it be given only to shareholders and employees of the
pension company.

In our scheme the pensioners paid it by getting smaller pensions !

As you know it was normal in the BBC to give lard arsed time servers
an extra grade in their last few months before retirement to enhance
their pension. I didn't like that because of the de-motivating effect
it had on new recruits, but it was one way that any surplus in the
pension fund went back to the people who had contributed to it.

DG

On Sep 29, 11:10 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-09-29 10:44:58 +0100, "Bob Eager" said:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:52:09 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

I do agree with your comments generally, but there are still many
people who do not use a computer, or do but dont trust them, so
unfortunately there is going to be demand for paper post for some
time.

For the dwindling number of those, it would be cheaper to simply supply
a computer. This is being managed with inexpensive notebooks for
kids in the 3rd world after all.

Intent on your crusade, you didn't read what he said.

Actually I did.

People who don't
trust a computer (and, I'd add, those who are too old or unable in other
ways to use one) are not going to be helped by supplying what, to them,
is a useless heap of junk. Not that your elitist approach entirely
surprises me...!

It's hardly elitist to suggest that when around 60% of the population
has internet access.

There is certainly an income factor with over 50% of adults earning
less than £10,400 never having used the internet. There's no reason
to believe that this is because they don't *want* to do so any more
than people in any other income group.

As to the factor of trust - technology moves on. When trains were
first introduced, there was a fear that people wouldn't be able to
survive a speed of more than a few miles per hour

WTF? Horses can travel at how many MPH






There are many relatively low value items that would be uneconomic to
send by courier.

If there is a market then the demand is filled.

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
You forget that pension contributions largely aren't subject to tax like
other personal income.

That's easy. it's not income.

They are paid for out of your income - and that income is taxed. But the
pension contributions aren't.

You can't get your mitts on it until you
retire, then you get an income and pay income tax on it.

As you do on the interest from any savings. Which is what a pension is.

How can you
pay tax on income you haven't received ?

Of course you receive it. You then pass it on to the pension scheme.

Don't tell me = you put it on
your credit card, a typical Nulab idea.

You seem to have a problem with the Labour party. Obviously have a short
memory if you don't remember the damage the Thatcher woman and her party
did to society which will take generations to get over - if ever.

--
*The modem is the message *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:44 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been
for Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the
pensions industry.

How did he do that, then? Pension funds collapsed due to the collapse
of shares after the .com boom and 9/11. The removal of dividend tax
credits can easily be compensated for by a small increase in
contributions, which employees or employers have had plenty of
opportunity to do.

Brown may have changed the way tax is applied to pension funds but no
one stole from the funds. It suits some people and sections of the
media to use very emotive language.

I have a completely different take on this. I was a director of a £1bn
pension fund for some 12 years.Ignoring the disparity between private
company and public pension schemes, the UK pensions system was the envy
of most of western Europe; that is it was sustainable and not running up
massive debt as was happening ( and I believe still is) in some
countries.

One of the failures was that at times of plenty, private companies were
put under pressure to take contribution holidays - by both government
and the City. Madness to my mind, at times of plenty, funds should be
squirrelling money away to help in times of difficulty. The issue of
longevity should have been accommodated by the actuaries.

Brown's raid upon pension funds was unforgiveable. Few private companies
are prepared or can now afford to provide defined contributions
pensions. This has heightened the disparity between public sector
pensions and company pensions.Our kids working in the private sector
have little encouragement to save enough for their later life.

Huge wrote:
On 2007-10-01, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:11:19 +0100 Derek Geldard wrote :
You mean actually *put even more money in than the regular
contribution* to the fund as the bottom is dropping out of the
market and Gordon Brown increasing his tax take, whilst the
Financial Services "Industry" keeps on collecting their charges
unabated as the funds go down and down?

The same pension funds had no problem with the notion that when
returns were better than expected they could pay less or nothing at
all, paying the money out to the shareholders. The converse should
have been true: as soon as they saw that their return would be lower
they should have increased their contributions. When sensible people
see harder times ahead they make provisions for them; the rest do
nothing and then blame everyone else for their failure to do so.

No-one has come out of the recent pensions debacle covered in glory.
Gordon Brown *did* rape the pensions industry; no politician can look
at sums of money belonging to others without thinking that they could
spend it much better then the people to whom it belongs. The
companies *are* motivated by greed and short-termism, exacerbated by
stupid legislation that pension funds are allowed neither to be in
credit or deficit. Trustees of pension funds are spineless "yes men".


I cannot agree with that. When I was a trustee, I was highly vocal when
the directors of the company wanted to do a Boots selling shares at a
low value in the market to buy bonds at the significant loss to the
fund. As a result of my belligerence, we phased moving the funds in a
mature pension scheme over a period of several years saving the fund
somewhere between £50 and £100m as the market moved.

The major impact of Brown's actions will not be seen for decades.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
You forget that pension contributions largely aren't subject to tax
like other personal income. And the amount you're allowed to invest is
subject to a limit and other controls. So if this pot was larger than
needed I can quite see why a chancellor should seek to remove some of
the surplus rather than let it be given only to shareholders and
employees of the pension company.

OTOH, he could have changed the law to prevent companies from syphoning
off the "surplus" (which as subsequent events showed, was no such
thing). he didn't.

Or more to the point made them pay it back? But then you'd not be in
favour of such a thing?

He decided to steal it.

Interesting the way you call a tax (where we all benefit from that money)
'stealing' but not the true 'theft' where the 'surplus' was removed and
given to only a few.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2007-10-01, clot wrote:
Huge wrote:

Trustees of pension funds are spineless "yes men".


I cannot agree with that. When I was a trustee,

I was generalising.

The major impact of Brown's actions will not be seen for decades.

They're already being seen. Tried to get into a final salary pension
scheme lately?

And you think that's down to Brown's actions? Thought you were more
intelligent than that.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
You seem to have a problem with the Labour party. Obviously have a
short memory if you don't remember the damage the Thatcher woman and
her party did to society which will take generations to get over - if
ever.

Oh, dear. I thought you were more intelligent than that.

So you think 'society' in a better state than 30 years ago? Think you may
be in a minority of one...

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Oct 1, 11:59 pm, "clot" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:44 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been
for Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the
pensions industry.

How did he do that, then? Pension funds collapsed due to the collapse
of shares after the .com boom and 9/11. The removal of dividend tax
credits can easily be compensated for by a small increase in
contributions, which employees or employers have had plenty of
opportunity to do.

Brown may have changed the way tax is applied to pension funds but no
one stole from the funds. It suits some people and sections of the
media to use very emotive language.

I have a completely different take on this. I was a director of a £1bn
pension fund for some 12 years.Ignoring the disparity between private
company and public pension schemes, the UK pensions system was the envy
of most of western Europe; that is it was sustainable and not running up
massive debt as was happening ( and I believe still is) in some
countries.

One of the failures was that at times of plenty, private companies were
put under pressure to take contribution holidays - by both government
and the City. Madness to my mind, at times of plenty, funds should be
squirrelling money away to help in times of difficulty. The issue of
longevity should have been accommodated by the actuaries.

Brown's raid upon pension funds was unforgiveable. Few private companies
are prepared or can now afford to provide defined contributions
pensions. This has heightened the disparity between public sector
pensions and company pensions.Our kids working in the private sector
have little encouragement to save enough for their later life.

You should know better with your experience. A lot of defined benefit
schemes were dead in the water anyway. Brown didn't "raid" any funds,
he merely changed the tax regime so that slightly less money was going
into the funds form dividend payments. In a well balanced fund (ie not
100% equity based) that amounted to less than 1% reduction in yield
per annum (well reasoned comment from the trustees of the fund I was
in at the time, not some random Joe on usenet). This could easily be
countered by a number of strategies involving employers, employees and
fund managers.

Yes, some firms were taking pension holidays and no one was really
planning on the .com bubble bursting, 9/11 or Enron but it's nearly 10
years ago that the change happened. There's been plenty of publicity
about pensions, if people have buried their heads in the sand since
then, claiming it's all the Scotsmans fault, then they deserve what
they get.

MBQ

In article ,
Huge wrote:
'stealing' but not the true 'theft' where the 'surplus' was removed and
given to only a few.

You seem a little confused as to what constitutes ownership. The money
in pension funds belonged either to the company, the employees or the
pensioners. It certainly didn't belong to the State.

And those companies 'stole' it from the pensioners - or potential
pensioners - and gave it to their shareholders and or employees.

You seem confused about what stealing means. Try looking it up. Then tell
us how what the government did was illegal. Any more so than what the
companies did.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huge wrote:
On 2007-10-01, clot wrote:

Brown's raid upon pension funds was unforgiveable. Few private
companies are prepared or can now afford to provide defined
contributions pensions.

I think you mean "defined benefit". Most pension schemese *are*
defined contribution these days.

I indeed did. My apologies.

wrote:
On Oct 1, 11:59 pm, "clot" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:44 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
Pension provision would be in a far better position had it not been
for Brown stealing from pension funds and essentially wrecking the
pensions industry.

How did he do that, then? Pension funds collapsed due to the
collapse of shares after the .com boom and 9/11. The removal of
dividend tax credits can easily be compensated for by a small
increase in contributions, which employees or employers have had
plenty of opportunity to do.

Brown may have changed the way tax is applied to pension funds but
no one stole from the funds. It suits some people and sections of
the media to use very emotive language.

I have a completely different take on this. I was a director of a
£1bn pension fund for some 12 years.Ignoring the disparity between
private company and public pension schemes, the UK pensions system
was the envy of most of western Europe; that is it was sustainable
and not running up massive debt as was happening ( and I believe
still is) in some countries.

One of the failures was that at times of plenty, private companies
were put under pressure to take contribution holidays - by both
government and the City. Madness to my mind, at times of plenty,
funds should be squirrelling money away to help in times of
difficulty. The issue of longevity should have been accommodated by
the actuaries.

Brown's raid upon pension funds was unforgiveable. Few private
companies are prepared or can now afford to provide defined
contributions pensions. This has heightened the disparity between
public sector pensions and company pensions.Our kids working in the
private sector have little encouragement to save enough for their
later life.

You should know better with your experience. A lot of defined benefit
schemes were dead in the water anyway. Brown didn't "raid" any funds,
he merely changed the tax regime so that slightly less money was going
into the funds form dividend payments. In a well balanced fund (ie not
100% equity based) that amounted to less than 1% reduction in yield
per annum (well reasoned comment from the trustees of the fund I was
in at the time, not some random Joe on usenet). This could easily be
countered by a number of strategies involving employers, employees and
fund managers.

Yes, some firms were taking pension holidays and no one was really
planning on the .com bubble bursting, 9/11 or Enron but it's nearly 10
years ago that the change happened. There's been plenty of publicity
about pensions, if people have buried their heads in the sand since
then, claiming it's all the Scotsmans fault, then they deserve what
they get.
I agree with much of what you are saying. However, Brown's action
caused companies to close defined benefits schemes in their droves. I am
concerned that younger workers today will not appreciate the
significance in the shift, will see pensioners as relatively well off at
present and not appreciate what all the fuse was about until it's too
late for them to take action.

In message , Huge
writes
He decided to steal it.

Interesting the way you call a tax (where we all benefit from that money)

[Derisive snort] AFAIAC, tax *is* theft. I certainly don't benefit from
the many thousands of pounds a year the State steals from me. And
increasingly, the State takes the money and provides nothing whatsoever
for it. I don't see how anyone could fail to see that a significant
proportion of that money, probably the majority, is ****ed away.

On what IYO is it ****ed away?

--
Si

In article ,
clot wrote:
I agree with much of what you are saying. However, Brown's action
caused companies to close defined benefits schemes in their droves.

Not so. The trend away from final salary schemes started long before that.

I am concerned that younger workers today will not appreciate the
significance in the shift, will see pensioners as relatively well off at
present and not appreciate what all the fuse was about until it's too
late for them to take action.

There's nothing magical about a final salary pension scheme. All schemes
depend on the money invested in them to be viable - apart from some non
funded public sector ones. How the final benefits are calculated is simply
a matter of detail. The fact is most firms have taken the opportunity to
reduce their contributions towards their employee's pensions.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 23:37:12 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
You forget that pension contributions largely aren't subject to tax like
other personal income.

That's easy. it's not income.

They are paid for out of your income - and that income is taxed.

No they are not. My scheme was non-contributory. The money never
passed through my hands.

But the pension contributions aren't.

You can't get your mitts on it until you
retire, then you get an income and pay income tax on it.

As you do on the interest from any savings.

Well firstly I don't know of any savings arrangement that gets taxed
whilst the fund is losing money, that would be something special.

There are very many savings vehicles that do not attract tax. From
Tessas (defunct but not when I was paying into my pension) to ISA's
to many and various MIPS, Bonds, insurance based products etc. They
are generally hedged about by government rules which make it
compulsory to give a drinkie-poos to some part or other of the
financial services industry. Why ?

a pension is a pension, and savings are savings

Savings are saved out of spendable cash. Some should be kept as
spendable cash, there if for instance if you have to get the roof
replaced, say. 45 years old with 23 years pension contributions under
your belt wouldn't cut the mustard. BTDTGTTS.

Which is what a pension is.

No, a pension is earnings that have been foregone until pensionable
age, which is when the tax should be payable, and in fact *is*
payable. By taxing the fund along the way as well as and then taxing
the pension income at the end results in a less favourable tax
treatment for pensions than an individual taking the cash under PAYE
and investing it up against the wall in a bar in Benedorm. Or simply
buying shares with cash net of PAYE. This is puzzling given the
benefit to the exchequer of people having their own retirement
pensions. Up to £190k a married couple gain no benefit from having a
private pension fund what they get as pension just reduces their
pension credits. In effect the exchequer gets a pension not them.


How can you
pay tax on income you haven't received ?

Of course you receive it. You then pass it on to the pension scheme.

No I don't, the scheme is non-contributory.

Don't tell me = you put it on
your credit card, a typical Nulab idea.

You seem to have a problem with the Labour party.

More than one

Obviously have a short memory

Nope, I can still remember :

"1967: Wislon defends 'pound in your pocket'

The Prime Minister, Harodl Wislon, has defended his decision to
devalue the pound saying it will tackle the "root cause" of Britain's
economic problems."

"The pound in your pocket has not been devalued" Wislon.

Yeah, right ...


"There's nothing special about 2.5% " "Solomon Binding" Calligan.

I can even remember the IMF IE. The Brokers Men Hauling Dennis
Healey off a plane with it's engines running at Heathrow airport.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

if you don't remember the damage the Thatcher woman

I can remember her, I didn't like her, she was a typical 1960's/70's
lower/middle management female. Always right, knew all the answers,
couldn't do the job themselves.

In the mill I worked at there were several of them in their late 20's
fighting amongst themselves to shag the 60++ year old general manager.

and her party did to society which will take generations to get over - if ever.

But the damage was done long before she came along. Calligan closed
more pits in the four years before she came along than she did in the
four years after, then it was all over. Same with the all the rust
belt industries. Scargill made mining unviable, trouble was he was so
busy trying to do damage to the country he didn't notice the tide had
gone out beneath his feet.

Surely you remember Scargill, and Red Robbo, and Jimmy Knapp?

Those were the days.

Jimmy Knapp. He was *ace* wasn't he?

DG

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
clot wrote:
I agree with much of what you are saying. However, Brown's action
caused companies to close defined benefits schemes in their droves.

For many, it was "The Last Straw" which they acted upon to close
schemes.

Not so. The trend away from final salary schemes started long before
that.

Agreed

I am concerned that younger workers today will not appreciate the
significance in the shift, will see pensioners as relatively well
off at present and not appreciate what all the fuse was about until
it's too late for them to take action.

There's nothing magical about a final salary pension scheme. All
schemes depend on the money invested in them to be viable - apart
from some non funded public sector ones. How the final benefits are
calculated is simply a matter of detail. The fact is most firms have
taken the opportunity to reduce their contributions towards their
employee's pensions.

Exactly - younger folk may not appreciate the significant impact that
it's going to have.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:02:24 +0100, Derek Geldard
wrote:

But the damage was done long before she came along. Calligan closed
more pits in the four years before she came along than she did in the
four years after, then it was all over.

Derek, you've said almost the exact same thing before in this same
newsgroup and your statement that "Calligan [sic] closed more pits in
the four years before she came along than she did in the four years
after" was proven completely wrong (with supporting evidence from a UK
government source) back in August 2005.

It took a while but Google came to the rescue.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-...7?dmode=source

But to save you any effort I'll repeat it for you again.

Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005
Derek ^ wrote:

Tell you what, there were more coal mines closed by Calligan in the 4
years before she got in than she closed in the 4 years after.

The facts prove that statement to be incorrect

Thatcher came to power on 4th May 1979

Pits open in 1975/76 241
Pits open in 1979/80 219
Loss of 22

Pits open in 1983/84 170
Loss of 49

Source
http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//36C84/...20Update.P DF

So, maybe you should amend your rant. Can I suggest that it should
read "Callaghan closed LESS pits in the four years before 4th May 1979
than the evil bitch Thatcher did in her first four years of her
dictatorship"


--

In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
They are paid for out of your income - and that income is taxed.

No they are not. My scheme was non-contributory. The money never
passed through my hands.

That you can't see this is still part of a salary package - like a company
car which *is* taxed or other benefits in kind - makes it rather pointless
carrying on this discussion.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Matt
writes
So, maybe you should amend your rant. Can I suggest that it should
read "Callaghan closed LESS pits

pedant FEWER not LESS /pedant

in the four years before 4th May 1979 than the evil bitch Thatcher did
in her first four years of her dictatorship"

but the thought was there

--
Si

On 2007-10-04 09:07:41 +0100, Si $3o&m said:

In message , Matt
writes
So, maybe you should amend your rant. Can I suggest that it should
read "Callaghan closed LESS pits

pedant FEWER not LESS /pedant

in the four years before 4th May 1979 than the evil bitch Thatcher did
in her first four years of her dictatorship"

but the thought was there

Besides which, it's somewhat academic. It was necessary to remove
the influence of Scargill etc. from the economy and this was an
effective way to do it, so in that sense reducing the dependency on an
unreliable source of energy was the right thing to do. The shame
was that Margaret Thatcher didn't pull the plug on Leyland--Rover at
the same time but that it was allowed to stumble on for the next 20 odd
years to its inevitable death.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Besides which, it's somewhat academic. It was necessary to remove
the influence of Scargill etc. from the economy and this was an
effective way to do it, so in that sense reducing the dependency on an
unreliable source of energy was the right thing to do.

And just how 'reliable' will imported gas be in the future, I wonder?

Interesting you learnt nothing about politicians during that period.
The 'problem' according to Thatcher etc was Scargill. So some who believed
this set up the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in an attempt to protect
their jobs. They were centred around mainly 'open cast' areas where
production costs were lower than deep mining. But of course this didn't
protect their jobs either. Thatcher was determined to get rid of coal
mining in the UK and rely on our inexhaustible supplies of natural gas
instead...

The shame was that Margaret Thatcher didn't pull the plug on
Leyland--Rover at the same time but that it was allowed to stumble on
for the next 20 odd years to its inevitable death.

So you think the UK incapable of designing and building cars? Strange.
Many other countries manage it. Of course in your eyes it will be down to
just the unions again.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Oct 3, 7:02 pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
Well firstly I don't know of any savings arrangement that gets taxed
whilst the fund is losing money, that would be something special.

Pension funds are not taxed.

No, a pension is earnings that have been foregone until pensionable
age, which is when the tax should be payable, and in fact *is*
payable. By taxing the fund along the way as well as and then taxing

Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed. The tax treatment of
a small element of the input to the fund was changed so that the fund
managers could no longer claim a rebate for corporation tax paid on
the profits from which dividends are paid out. Once in the fund, no
tax is payable until a pension is taken.

One part of the theory was that if companies re-invested profits in
the business instead of paying them out as dividends, the growth in
equity value would offset the loss of dividend payments (and tax
credits) to pension funds.

Anyone (IMHO) in a private pension scheme has the opportunity to
select investment strategies and select the way their money is
invested in equities, cash, bonds, property, etc. Making sensible
choices here and moving out of high volatility areas as you approach
retirement is likely to reap far greater rewards than keeping dividend
tax credits and doing nothing. Sadly, a lot of people tend to do
nothing so you get cases of people retiring the day after a market
crash who were heavily invested in equities and find they suddenly
have a much smaller pension fund to draw on.

MBQ

Si $3o&m wrote:

In message , Matt
writes
So, maybe you should amend your rant. Can I suggest that it should
read "Callaghan closed LESS pits

pedant FEWER not LESS /pedant

And "may", not "can".

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The shame was that Margaret Thatcher didn't pull the plug on
Leyland--Rover at the same time but that it was allowed to stumble on
for the next 20 odd years to its inevitable death.

So you think the UK incapable of designing and building cars?

No, he seems to think, and certainly do think that BMC/Leyland/Rover
were incapable of building cars to an acceptable standard. The UK
designs and builds some of the worlds most desirable cars, despite the
fact that some of its citizens buy ugly kraut ****e in preference to
home-grown style and comfort.

Strange. Many other countries manage it.

Indeed they do, and they either manage it like the French and Italians
by massive state aid to prop up failing industries or like other
countries by making vehicles that people want to own.

In the UK we apply the later model with some success and the UK motor
industry is in better shape now than it was in the 70s/80s. Rover is
where it deserves to be, forgotten other than by a few cardigan wearers.

Of course in your eyes it will be down to just the unions again.

I think in the eyes of anyone other than those raised as Trots the
unions became the architects of their own misfortunes.

wrote:

Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed.

That's untrue. Gordon Brown's stealth taxes on pension funds currently
remove about £6 billion a year from pensions.

The tax rules were changed so that pensions have to pay tax on dividends
received from their investments. It is untrue to state that "no tax is
payable until a pension is taken", because tacx is paid on every
dividend received by a pension fund.

The rest of your drivel is the usual self-serving Labour clap trap which
tries to disguise a raid on pension funds as "business as usual".

Steve Firth ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Strange. Many other countries manage it.

Indeed they do, and they either manage it like the French and Italians
by massive state aid to prop up failing industries

I dunno about Fiat, but I wouldn't say that either PSA or Renault were
"failing industries" "propped up" by the state.

Renault made north of $1bn income on $40bn turnover last year, a decade
after privatisation, after the costs of propping Nissan up.
PSA made less profit - only about Eur180m - but on Eur56bn turnover.

On Oct 4, 12:01 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed.

That's untrue. Gordon Brown's stealth taxes on pension funds currently
remove about £6 billion a year from pensions.

Wrong, nothing is removed from pension funds. A little less money is
added in each year from dividend payments. It's not a stealth tax, the
system is quite transparent and open.


The tax rules were changed so that pensions have to pay tax on dividends
received from their investments.

Wrong again. Pension funds do not pay tax. Dividends are paid out of a
companies taxed profits. Pension funds can no longer claim a tax
refund.

It is untrue to state that "no tax is
payable until a pension is taken", because tacx is paid on every
dividend received by a pension fund.

Wrong again. They can no longer claim a refund of tax already paid by
someone else.


The rest of your drivel is the usual self-serving Labour clap trap which
tries to disguise a raid on pension funds as "business as usual".

Wrong again. I am certainly no fan of either old or nu Labor. My
"drivel" is the cold facts rather than the emotive clap trap spouted
by yourself and others.

MBQ

wrote:

On Oct 4, 12:01 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed.

That's untrue. Gordon Brown's stealth taxes on pension funds currently
remove about £6 billion a year from pensions.

Wrong, nothing is removed from pension funds. A little less money is
added in each year from dividend payments. It's not a stealth tax, the
system is quite transparent and open.

Wrong, the taxation is hidden from those paying into pension funds.

On Oct 4, 12:31 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:01 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed.

That's untrue. Gordon Brown's stealth taxes on pension funds currently
remove about £6 billion a year from pensions.

Wrong, nothing is removed from pension funds. A little less money is
added in each year from dividend payments. It's not a stealth tax, the
system is quite transparent and open.

Wrong, the taxation is hidden from those paying into pension funds.

Which tax is that, then? What rate is it levied at? Point us to the
HMR&C documents that state what tax is levied on pension funds.

MBQ

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:24:39 +0100, Matt
wrote:


http://groups.google.com/group/uk.d-...7?dmode=source

But to save you any effort I'll repeat it for you again.


Why thank you, just the once will suffice.


Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005
Derek ^ wrote:

Tell you what, there were more coal mines closed by Calligan in the 4
years before she got in than she closed in the 4 years after.

The facts prove that statement to be incorrect

Thatcher came to power on 4th May 1979

Pits open in 1975/76 241
Pits open in 1979/80 219
Loss of 22

Pits open in 1983/84 170
Loss of 49

Source
http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//36C84/...20Update.P DF


My sources were such as these ...

http://www.northeasthistory.co.uk/th...res/index.html

http://www.northeastengland.talktalk...ge92.htm#1960s

So, maybe you should amend your rant.

It would be my pleasure

Can I suggest that it should
read "Callaghan closed LESS pits in the four years before 4th May 1979
than the evil bitch Thatcher did in her first four years of her
dictatorship"

You are free to suggest it but it would not be regarded as acceptable.
By way of a compromise I would propose the following alternatives :

"Labour presided over the closure of more pits under 6 years of Wislon
than the Conservatives did under 11 years of Thatcher."

Or, if you like :

"There were more coal mines and rust belt industries in the north east
closed by Calligan in the 4 years before Thatcher got in than she
closed in the 4 years after.

Which do you like best ?

BTW. I refer to Sunny Jim, Baron Calligan of Cardiff as Calligan in
memory of my late mother who coined the term.

DG

wrote:

On Oct 4, 12:31 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:01 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed.

That's untrue. Gordon Brown's stealth taxes on pension funds currently
remove about £6 billion a year from pensions.

Wrong, nothing is removed from pension funds. A little less money is
added in each year from dividend payments. It's not a stealth tax, the
system is quite transparent and open.

Wrong, the taxation is hidden from those paying into pension funds.

Which tax is that, then? What rate is it levied at? Point us to the
HMR&C documents that state what tax is levied on pension funds.

sigh

Double taxation is taxation. Pensions are taxed on the earnings made on
investment during the growth period of the pension, and taxed again when
the pension is paid. That you don't know this makes you look, well dumb
really.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:20:13 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


And just how 'reliable' will imported gas be in the future, I wonder?

Natural gas production is an extractive industry.


Interesting you learnt nothing about politicians during that period.
The 'problem' according to Thatcher etc was Scargill. So some who believed
this set up the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in an attempt to protect
their jobs. They were centred around mainly 'open cast' areas where
production costs were lower than deep mining. But of course this didn't
protect their jobs either.

It wouldn't, because the easiest coal to win had already been taken.
Mining had been in trouble since the turn of the century. See here :

http://www.geocities.com/waggonways/...rnopfield.html

Coal mines practically touching each other.

Thatcher was determined to get rid of coal mining in the UK

It was almost finished by the time she got in.

and rely on our inexhaustible supplies of natural gas instead...

For years we had foregone burning natural gas in power stations, it
had been kept in reserve as a premium fuel to burn in central heating
boilers and use as chemical feedstock, everybody knew it was not
inexhaustible.This was harming our competitiveness with the countries
on the continent that had no qualms about it. Coal was running out and
what we had left was getting even more expensive to mine. If we were
burning as much coal today as in the '60s the British mines would be
uneconomic compared with coal from Poland (which we would not be able
to keep out of the country) and from many other places.

The shame was that Margaret Thatcher didn't pull the plug on
Leyland--Rover at the same time but that it was allowed to stumble on
for the next 20 odd years to its inevitable death.

So you think the UK incapable of designing and building cars? Strange.
Many other countries manage it. Of course in your eyes it will be down to
just the unions again.

Well, Scargill scarcely made a positive contribution to alleviating
the problems of the coal industry.

DG

On Oct 4, 1:34 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:31 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:01 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed.

That's untrue. Gordon Brown's stealth taxes on pension funds currently
remove about £6 billion a year from pensions.

Wrong, nothing is removed from pension funds. A little less money is
added in each year from dividend payments. It's not a stealth tax, the
system is quite transparent and open.

Wrong, the taxation is hidden from those paying into pension funds.

Which tax is that, then? What rate is it levied at? Point us to the
HMR&C documents that state what tax is levied on pension funds.

sigh

Double taxation is taxation. Pensions are taxed on the earnings made on
investment during the growth period of the pension,

How do the fund managers pay this tax? What rate is it levied at? Go
on, make me look even dumber, I can take it.

The earnings are paid to the fund net of tax. the fund pays no further
tax.

and taxed again when
the pension is paid.

That's never been at issue in this thread. That's a tax on the
pensioners income, subject to the prevailing allowances and tax rates,
not a tax on the pension fund.

That you don't know this makes you look, well dumb
really.

You're not presenting yourself in a very good light.

MBQ

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:58:06 -0700, "
wrote:

On Oct 3, 7:02 pm, Derek Geldard wrote:
Well firstly I don't know of any savings arrangement that gets taxed
whilst the fund is losing money, that would be something special.

Pension funds are not taxed.

No the underlying investment is taxed before the fund gets it.

Guess what? I don't care, it makes no difference to me.

The exchequer takes about £ 7 billion per annum which would have gone
into pension funds had the Chancellor not changed the rules.

No, a pension is earnings that have been foregone until pensionable
age, which is when the tax should be payable, and in fact *is*
payable. By taxing the fund along the way as well as and then taxing

Still don't get it? A pension fund is not taxed. The tax treatment of
a small element

FSVO "Small" to the tune of £7 billion per year.

of the input to the fund was changed so that the fund
managers could no longer claim a rebate for corporation tax paid on
the profits from which dividends are paid out. Once in the fund, no
tax is payable until a pension is taken.

One part of the theory was that if companies re-invested profits in
the business instead of paying them out as dividends, the growth in
equity value would offset the loss of dividend payments (and tax
credits) to pension funds.

I've invented a perpetual motion machine, you need a lot of old men
and a very tall building. the old men raise themselves up to the roof
by pulling on their bootsraps and climb on an overshot paddle wheel
and as they descend the wheel drives a generator.

Hmmm, Maybe Hilary Benn could get me some funding ...

I digress. On 2nd thoughts maybe I should keep my odd ball ideas to
myself and the Chancellor should refrain from experimenting in /
micromanaging the country's pensions.

I'm afraid I see it as a mealy mouthed excuse for taking more tax in
such a way that the people who end up being deprived of the cash have
no way to evaluate how much they are losing. It's about as credible as
Basil Fawlty trying to explain away his sooty handprints on the
Australian girls breasts.


Anyone (IMHO) in a private pension scheme has the opportunity to
select investment strategies and select the way their money is
invested in equities, cash, bonds, property, etc. Making sensible
choices here and moving out of high volatility areas as you approach
retirement is likely to reap far greater rewards than keeping dividend
tax credits and doing nothing. Sadly, a lot of people tend to do
nothing so you get cases of people retiring the day after a market
crash who were heavily invested in equities and find they suddenly
have a much smaller pension fund to draw on.

Yes, we all got advised to move to a less volatile fund at 12 months
before retirement. Standard proceadure I believe.

I don't know where that quite gets us when the market has been
unstable for Ca. 8 years on the trot.

DG

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:34:50 +0100 Steve Firth wrote :
Double taxation is taxation. Pensions are taxed on the earnings made on
investment during the growth period of the pension, and taxed again when
the pension is paid. That you don't know this makes you look, well dumb
really.

They pay tax on the dividends, but do they pay tax on capital gains? One
of the reasons for the change AIUI was that pension funds were putting
pressure on companies to pay out dividends rather than reinvesting profits
to grow the business and in time increasing the share price. IOW, as so
often in the city, their responsibility was to ensure the sound financing
of pensions over a 10, 20, 30+ year period, but having nice figures at the
end of the quarter was the driver.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk