In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:
It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

Maybe I was lucky, I had good advice from the company pension scheme
trustees about what it really meant, and acted accordingly.

ISTR it amounted to about 5 billion a year. And it's probably no
coincidence that company pension schemes all seemed to evaporate
shortly afterwards.

Andy

And he switched about £2.5bn per annum of income from the state pension
fund to the Treasury under the guise of Green Taxes..
--
bert

In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 21, 10:17*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference
as anyone with a cse in maths will know.

Socialist like to steal ANY money they can lay their hands on.
They can buy votes from the idle with it.

And immigrants
--
bert

In message , Huge
writes
On 2013-03-22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 01:46:25 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Socialist like to steal ANY money they can lay their hands on.
They can buy votes from the idle with it.

So the perpetual raids on the family silver during the Thatcher and
Major era
was the act of a socialist government then?

There was no "family silver". There were just assets owned by an entity
called "The Government" which assigned itself the rights to these
assets, and then proceeded to run them inefficiently and announced
arbitrary price-rises on a yearly basis with essentially no discussion
or regulation. They made *stinking* losses.

You'll note that these assets were *not* owned by "us" during this
process.

The phrase "public ownership" always makes me laugh. That and "natural
justice".


Plus the phrase "in the twenty-first century"
--
bert

On Mar 22, 1:14*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes







On Mar 21, 8:11*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes

On Mar 21, 3:22 pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes

On Mar 21, 12:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

But a few % on a year on year basis, so over say 30 years adds up to
quite a bit.

No more than you need to account for and plan for due to other
influences on returns over the same time frame. So not really a big
issue.

MBQ

Whether or not other influences are bigger or smaller is irrelevant.

Nope. They're all thing to take account of when reviewing your pension
planning.

And your only option is to put in more money to compensate,

The penny drops, at last.

MBQ

On Mar 22, 1:18*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
,
harry writes









On Mar 21, 10:17*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference
as anyone with a cse in maths will know.

Socialist like to steal ANY money they can lay their hands on.
They can buy votes from the idle with it.

And immigrants
--
bert

True.

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Mar 22, 1:14*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes







On Mar 21, 8:11*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes

On Mar 21, 3:22 pm, bert ] wrote:
In message

, Man
at B&Q writes

On Mar 21, 12:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message

, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the

those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid
reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

But a few % on a year on year basis, so over say 30 years adds up to
quite a bit.

No more than you need to account for and plan for due to other
influences on returns over the same time frame. So not really a big
issue.

MBQ

Whether or not other influences are bigger or smaller is irrelevant.

Nope. They're all thing to take account of when reviewing your pension
planning.

And your only option is to put in more money to compensate,

The penny drops, at last.

MBQ

Good. You've finally accepted that it is a grab on the pension funds.
--
bert

On Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:23:01 AM UTC, Tim Streater wrote:
In article

,

"Man at B&Q" wrote:



On Mar 20, 10:14*pm, "dennis@home"

wrote:

On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:



















On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:



On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:

On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:



I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out

of everyone's bank account?



They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.



Owain



Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension

funds for the money.



Now where have I heard of that one before?



Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?



When did Blair do that?



He didn't, nor did his sidekick Brown.



What, drown? Unfortunately you are right. But Brown did do a raid on UK

pension funds.


No he didn't he sold our gold instead.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ck-down-price/

In message , at
14:43:50 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Tim Streater
remarked:

The phrase "public ownership" always makes me laugh.

There is, of course, something which can be correctly described as
"public ownership", and that is when a member of the public owns shares
in a public company. A public company is one whose shares are traded
and available for purchase. A private company is one whose shares are
not traded because they are all owned by one or possible two people [1].

Faintly reminiscent of the UK/US English situation where a Public School
in the former is privately-run and in the latter is state-run.
--
Roland Perry

Tim Streater writes:

In article , bert ]
wrote:

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2013-03-21, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...ament-idUSBRE9
2G03
I20130317

If you reckon that it would be reasonable to get 5% interest on your
savings and instead you're getting 0.05% or somesuch silly rate, you'll
be 10% down after a couple of years.
QE has reduced the value of (y)our savings by far more than 10%. The
only
difference between QE and what the Cypriot authorities are doing is that
the latter is more blatant. Either way, the State is stealing your
possessions for its own ends.

Actually I'd have said making you pay now for what you've already had
on tick.

I haven't got anything "on tick". Pensioners still pay taxes.

Perhaps not you personally, but the UK population as a whole.

Yes, almost everyone has bought a house 'on tick'. Hardly anybody,
other than those with very rich parents, pays cash for a first house.

When the world changes, as it does, companies and private individuals
may find their income reduced.
That may not cause any immediate problem other than a need to reduce
the outgoings, but the next such change can mean that there's a need to
borrow in order to pay for modernisation, repairs, etc., the
alternative being to go out of business. Or, for an individual, to
become homeless.
That's unlikely to be anyone's first choice.

Some few may recklessly borrow huge amounts without good reason, but I
doubt if many would.


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
@ O n e t e l
. c o m

polygonum writes:

On 21/03/2013 20:15, bert wrote:

Oh I totally agree with that general sentiment, both personal and
government debt around £1trillion each in the UK.

Speak for yourself! Even with my partner we don't owe a trillion...

But if 60 million people owe about 20 thousand on average, that's a bit
more than a trillion in total.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
@ O n e t e l
. c o m

harry writes:

On Mar 21, 10:17=A0pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference
as anyone with a cse in maths will know.

Socialist like to steal ANY money they can lay their hands on.
They can buy votes from the idle with it.

10% compounded over about 7 years doubles your money. But at 1% it
takes about a century to double. (So someone saving to buy a house
can't expect much help from interest; they're going to have to save
large amounts every month, or wait maybe 80 years, before they can pay
cash for a house.)


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
@ O n e t e l
. c o m

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Whisky-dave wrote :
No he didn't he sold our gold instead.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...ck-down-price/

He wasn't the only one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-0...in-gold/351864

2In November 1997 the then [Australian] Treasurer, Peter Costello, [Liberal
= UK Conservative] shocked some people when he announced he'd signed off on
the sale of $2 billion worth of Australian bullion. On the day he announced
the sale the price was around $US306.00 an ounce. At the time, according to
Mr Costello, gold "no longer plays a significant role in the international
financial system ...

So here it was 1997 and Australia had sold two thirds of its gold assets in
a single day, and sold into a buyer's market. While the sale helped pay down
debts, the deal was to cost Australia billions of dollars in the long run.
But at the time people were lining up to congratulate the Treasurer."

If you want to run this argument, you can argue that whoever was Chancellor
in 1980 cost the UK billions by not flogging off all the UK's gold while it
was around $800 a ounce, then buying it back at half this price a few years
later. But as with all investments, it's obvious when to buy and when to
sell ... in hindsight.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Whisky-dave wrote :
No he didn't he sold our gold instead.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...67/revealed-wh
y-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

He wasn't the only one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-0...in-gold/351864

2In November 1997 the then [Australian] Treasurer, Peter Costello, [Liberal
= UK Conservative] shocked some people when he announced he'd signed off on
the sale of $2 billion worth of Australian bullion. On the day he announced
the sale the price was around $US306.00 an ounce. At the time, according to
Mr Costello, gold "no longer plays a significant role in the international
financial system ...

So here it was 1997 and Australia had sold two thirds of its gold assets in
a single day, and sold into a buyer's market. While the sale helped pay down
debts, the deal was to cost Australia billions of dollars in the long run.
But at the time people were lining up to congratulate the Treasurer."

If you want to run this argument, you can argue that whoever was Chancellor
in 1980 cost the UK billions by not flogging off all the UK's gold while it
was around $800 a ounce, then buying it back at half this price a few years
later. But as with all investments, it's obvious when to buy and when to
sell ... in hindsight.

Gold goes in cycles generally out of phase with share prices. Just look
what happened after the credit crunch. The fact that your Treasurer was
also a pillock along with thousands of your fellow countrymen doesn't
alter the argument.
--
bert