I didn't but the change meant no possible gain to the company and this was a small pension scheme. My worry was the actuaries coming up with realistic numbers.
ITV debate
- Thread starter Murdochcat
- Start date
Semantics I think., (don't mean to be dismissive) Companies need to use pensions as a value-added proposition of the employment. Think the civil / pubic service pension for example. If this is removed, then the number will fail to add up.
You mean like Brexit £100billion
Test n trace £30billion
Bogus PPE contracts £4b
Michelle Mone £200million
Rwanda scheme £600million
Leading question
I don't know much about pensions. But are you talking about this sort of thing?
How to unpick calls for pension funds to invest more in the UK
The chancellor, the shadow chancellor and even the Lord Mayor of the City of London have called for more pension fund investment in UK companies and infrastructure. Bernard Casey writes that these …
blogs.lse.ac.uk
It will be dishing out grants with no responsibilty for infrastructureYou are being more than a tad disingenuous
It is being funded by a windfall tax on energy companies so will get around £8b investment
thats substantially more than "a quango"
I agree its to a state owned GB energy company like EDF, but unions have calculate that would cost £80b which we dont have
Please try and look beyond your narrow "I hate Starmer" goggles
GB Energy: What role will Labour's state-owned energy company really play?
Labour’s pledge to create a state-owned energy company is key to its 2030 clean power target – yet has received little attention so far. Sienna Rod...www.politicshome.com
Deadly serious
Gordon Brown's change was removal of the dividend tax concession. As I have shown by the worked example, the cost to policy holders was tiny, less than charges, and less than daily fluctuations.
Andy doesn't believe it but he can't say what it is that troubles him.
A tiny charge.
If you had a small workplace pension, tell me what you think it would be.
Any ad valorem tax gets the most money from those who have the most.
Unless, of course, there is special generosity to the rich.
Pensions are a sensitive subject, especially to those who are both wealthy, and old (members of the Conservative Party, for example) so it was a handy tool to whip up protest.
But the cost, to you? Trivial.
Expert?
Are you sure it isn't a publication owned by Daily Mail Group?
Is it someone who you think can be trusted to be fair and accurate when talking about the actions of a political party they don't like?
Let me guess, do they say "it would cost hardly anything to reverse it?" And also "the cost to pensioners has been huge?"
Which is it? Tiny or huge?
Best of all, try to tell what what, if anything, in my worked example you think is wrong.
I bet your "expert"didn't provide a worked example.
If you can't do that, try to tell me what the effect has been, on you. In 1997, did you have a £100,000 pension fund?