Strikes take 2

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Is that all you've got?

so inexperienced

 

[Reg Martin]

I must of missed the "coalition" tick box on the ballot sheet.

Genuine question then MK, based on last year's election result, who do you think should be in govt?
The options as far as I can see are:
Conservatives got most votes so arguably they should be in govt (they actually got more votes than Labour in 2005)
A Conservative-Labour coalition would represent most voters in theory!
A Conservative-LibDem would be the 3rd option based on votes
After that Lab-LibDem, then 5th choice would be minority Lab administration

Could have had another election I suppose but what if that had come up with same result?

 

[Reg Martin]

I hate George Osbourne and would like to kick him in the face. At least if you invited Cameron round for dinner he'd use his fake charm, feign interest and generally behave himself.

If osbourne was at your dinner table it would only be a matter of seconds before he was sneering at the quality of your silverware.

I really like George Osbourne and would like to give him a big wet sloppy kiss on the lips

 

[Reg Martin]

Two million strikers is not "a damp squib".Discuss.

No idea of official definition of a damp squib - some kind of marine life possibly :smiles:but on the subject of numbers:
Two million strikers according to TUC
Less than half that according to Govt
Both could be telling porkies of course

According to LGA only about 1/3rd of council workers were on strike would fit with what I saw where I work

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No idea of official definition of a damp squib - some kind of marine life possibly :smiles:but on the subject of numbers:
Two million strikers according to TUC
Less than half that according to Govt
Both could be telling porkies of course

According to LGA only about 1/3rd of council workers were on strike would fit with what I saw where I work

All the figures on total strikers would be guess work (tho Bilel can always cover, etc) but Cameron's quotes this morning on how many schools had closed was way below the official Department of Education figures so I guess we can assume he is downplaying the other strike figures too.
The question on who should be in government, common sense dictates someone has to be, and only fair that the party with the biggest vote gets to team up with whoever is willing, but it does mean Tory voters get a watered down version of what they wanted, Lib Dem voters are totally shafted as it will take a generation for their vote to pick up, and tatical Lib Dem voters like myself just wish we had vote for the party we wanted rather than against the party we really didn't want. Fair to say that pretty much no-one is happy with the outcome.

 

[applelover]

I really like George Osbourne and would like to give him a big wet sloppy kiss on the lips

Is sneering a quality you look for in a man? :stunned::smile:

 

[Hotman]

so inexperienced

that's not what your missus said

 

[Perth Bambi]

Can someone give me a brief basic summary of what Brown did to the private pensions that people are mentioning?

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

Can someone give me a brief basic summary of what Brown did to the private pensions that people are mentioning?

Apparently there were 4 Treasury reports arguing against him doing this but he went ahead. Blair said he did not want it but hey he was only Prime Minister.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...id-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html

I'm sure Neil can explain why the policy was so destructive as I think you have to be an economics graduate to understand the process because I don't really but the effect was disastrous.

 

[Pubey]

Have the MP's pensions been cut?

 

[pickledseal]

Have the MP's pensions been cut?

No. Apparently they "probably will be" and "at some point in the future".

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

No. Apparently they "probably will be" and "at some point in the future".

Even Ken Clark signed up to that last night on Question Time.It's something that left wing Labour MP's like(ex-MP) Chris Mullin have been wanting to do for some time.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

that's not what your missus said

my wife is a man, and he said you insisted on playing the female role in your little get together and that yes you seemed well versed in what to do. He came back to me afterwards though

 

[Neil_F]

I'm sure Neil can explain why the policy was so destructive .

Right, here goes...

Let me take you back briefly to the introduction of corporation tax. Company A makes a profit of £100 and that profit is subject to coporation tax, let's say at 20%. So company A has £80 net profit. Let's say that company A chooses to pay it all as a dividend. For simplicity, there is just one shareholder so he receives £80 of dividend income. He's a higher rate taxpayer so has to pay tax on it, let's say at 50%. So he is left with £40.

The problem is that, under the system above, the company profit has effectively been taxed twice (at a total of 60%): once at the corporate level and once at the personal level when the profit is distributed. This is called a classical tax system. The theory is that it reduces economic activity as it disincentivises investment in equities.

Back in the 1970s the system was changed to what is called an imputed system. Essentially, when receiving the dividend income, an individual assumes that basic rate tax has already been paid on it. So, basic rate taxpayers didn't have to pay anything further, higher rate taxpayers paid the difference between the basic and higher rate, and those not subject to tax could claim back the basic rate tax that was assumed to be have been paid. This made investment in equity much more attractive.

Pension schemes don't pay tax on investment returns. So under the imputed system, a company put £5m into their company pension trust (along with all the employee contributions) and invested it in equity. They received dividends and, because the pension fund is exempt from tax, got a tax refund on the imputed basic rate tax. As an example, if the pension fund received a dividend of £80 then, with a 20% basic tax rate, they would get a further £20 tax refund, to give total income of £100. This system was part of something known as advanced corporation tax (ACT).

In 1997 Gordon Brown repealed ACT. He did so for two reasons:

1 - Cash. It was worth £5bn a year and was an easy target. He calculated that it would effectively be a way of taxing employers, who would make up the loss in the pension.
2 - It encouraged pension schemes to move away from equity investment to debt (so they earned interest) i.e. he wanted pension schemes to invest in government bonds.

Removing ACT meant that pension schemes no longer got the tax refund so there was suddenly a huge funding problem for all defined benefit schemes. A lot of employers decided they couldn't afford to bridge that gap and closed the schemes to the detriment of the employees.

I don't think it was deliberate, but it ended up being catastrophic for millions of employees and thousands of employers.

 

[Beefy]

I can't rep you again so thanks for that clear explanation, Neil.

 

[Firestorm]

Right, here goes...

Let me take you back briefly to the introduction of corporation tax. Company A makes a profit of £100 and that profit is subject to coporation tax, let's say at 20%. So company A has £80 net profit. Let's say that company A chooses to pay it all as a dividend. For simplicity, there is just one shareholder so he receives £80 of dividend income. He's a higher rate taxpayer so has to pay tax on it, let's say at 50%. So he is left with £40.

The problem is that, under the system above, the company profit has effectively been taxed twice (at a total of 60%): once at the corporate level and once at the personal level when the profit is distributed. This is called a classical tax system. The theory is that it reduces economic activity as it disincentivises investment in equities.

Back in the 1970s the system was changed to what is called an imputed system. Essentially, when receiving the dividend income, an individual assumes that basic rate tax has already been paid on it. So, basic rate taxpayers didn't have to pay anything further, higher rate taxpayers paid the difference between the basic and higher rate, and those not subject to tax could claim back the basic rate tax that was assumed to be have been paid. This made investment in equity much more attractive.

Pension schemes don't pay tax on investment returns. So under the imputed system, a company put £5m into their company pension trust (along with all the employee contributions) and invested it in equity. They received dividends and, because the pension fund is exempt from tax, got a tax refund on the imputed basic rate tax. As an example, if the pension fund received a dividend of £80 then, with a 20% basic tax rate, they would get a further £20 tax refund, to give total income of £100. This system was part of something known as advanced corporation tax (ACT).

In 1997 Gordon Brown repealed ACT. He did so for two reasons:

1 - Cash. It was worth £5bn a year and was an easy target. He calculated that it would effectively be a way of taxing employers, who would make up the loss in the pension.
2 - It encouraged pension schemes to move away from equity investment to debt (so they earned interest) i.e. he wanted pension schemes to invest in government bonds.

Removing ACT meant that pension schemes no longer got the tax refund so there was suddenly a huge funding problem for all defined benefit schemes. A lot of employers decided they couldn't afford to bridge that gap and closed the schemes to the detriment of the employees.

I don't think it was deliberate, but it ended up being catastrophic for millions of employees and thousands of employers.

Thanks for that

Am I right in thinking that between the implementation of ACT and its repeal, private pension schemes were getting a subsidy from the tax payer of 20% of any Dividend based investment gains

 

[londonblue]

Joke for you all:

A banker, a Tory MP, a Daily Mail reader and a teacher are sitting round a table. On the table are 10 biscuits. The banker scoffs nine of them. The Tory MP turns to the Daily Mail reader and whispers, "Watch out, that teacher is after your biscuit."

 

[Hotman]

Joke for you all:

A banker, a Tory MP, a Daily Mail reader and a teacher are sitting round a table. On the table are 10 biscuits. The banker scoffs nine of them. The Tory MP turns to the Daily Mail reader and whispers, "Watch out, that teacher wants you to buy them biscuits for the rest of their life, whilst you and the banker will have to fend for yourself in retirement. Good luck"

Edited for accuracy

 

[Napster]

Joke for you all:

A banker, a Tory MP, a Daily Mail reader and a teacher are sitting round a table. On the table are 10 biscuits. The banker scoffs nine of them. The Tory MP turns to the Daily Mail reader and whispers, "Watch out, those biscuits cause cancer. Let me have the other one."

Edited for more accuracy.

 

[londonblue]

Actually, thinking about it, the Daily Mail reader wouldn't have any idea about the biscuits because they'd still be reading about Princess Diana.