Will you be opting out of NEST?

[Guest sibon]

Have you considered the idea that if those with a good income were made to save some for retirement, there might be more cash for social housing.

 

Unlikely under the Tories, I know. But they won't be in power for ever...

[chem1st]

But many more people are not allowed to opt out of supporting those who opt out of providing for themselves.

 

Why shouldn't those in work save for their own retirement?

 

You make a fair point.

 

However, our society is built upon slavery - society has been built upon the forced taxation of others. They call it RENT! And they were tithes.

 

And now income taxes, and consumption taxes, and taxes upon 'vices', health taxes, eco taxes, etc.

 

Some of the things we pay taxes for (many which are now being cut back upon) are things like unemployment benefit and healthcare! Things that came about through private donations, even pooled contributions!

 

Man has been deprived of his ability to contribute for such things, whilst his taxes fund private individuals to live beyond their means! And they do so by stopping paying upon the taxes he wished to fund in the first place!

 

Don't get me wrong, people should be better off for working, IN A FREE_MARKET! (And in a free-market they would!) But there ain't no freemarket, currency and land is monopolised, and increasingly often , the provision of public services backed up by gurantee, even odious services suck as currency creation and usury!

 

Wasn't NI supposed to be for the pension originally?

 

Has NI not rose and rose?

 

Haven't they increased NI recently, and the retirement age?

 

And now introduced a new form of taxation (which they have openly said they wish to make mandatory in due course - they couldn't get away with doing it in one fell swoop - hence the drip, drip, drip of it into the tax-benefit system).

 

Perhaps shouldn't today's OAPs funded their own pensions?

 

Afterall, current taxation funds pensions. There is no magic pot.

 

Why should the minimum wage rise by but 1.8% whilst pensions are guaranteed an above inflation rise, a rise of 0.5% above CPI, RPI, or one of 2.5%, whichever is greatest?

 

I'm not totally against this devaluation of the currency. In many ways I am for it. But I would opt for a full out demurrage currency with fixed depreciation. One that falls primarily upon the hoarders of currency, rather than those who do not understand it.

 

Perhaps the burden upon workers should be cut, and the amount paid out in pensions reduced. Tie the pension to minimum wage. Make a temporary cut in pensions, let them rise slightly below inflation to re-balance the system. And universalise means tested benefits. Passport all pensioners to free dental care and workers too, the same with optical care, but allow frame makers and toothbrush makers to trade their goods.

 

Work should pay. Taxes are required , but they should be affordable (allow for work to pay!)

Benefits should be universalised and means tests gotten rid off.

 

When you say that people are forced to pay for others, remember that people cannot opt out of the system, they cannot grow their own food or build their own house, and public sector wages along with private sector wages derived from public subsidy - be that in the form of direct cash, cash collecting mechanisms, mini monopoly or outright monopoly they SET A MINIMUM price.

 

XYZ in the terms of minimum wage.

XYZ in the terms of public sector salaries.

 

The benefit system is in fact required to allow for wage setting in monopoly currency by those with the power to power do so, it also legitimises the currency (although it is not the only thing to do so - power and control over land and trade is a far more effective at doing so).

 

That's why houses near hospitals are more expensive, why food is more expensive in countries with welfare systems.

Much like how beer and tobacco are artificially inflated in price by direct DUTYs that are many multiples of the cost of the price of the product.

A black market does arise, because there is profit, but there is only profit due to the subsidy resulting from higher prices.

 

Criminals smuggle drugs because they command a high price, they command a high price because they are banned, seized and destroyed. The same would happen with food. People would still eat, but at vast cost, increasingly people would be priced out of eating until the black market could provide enough food, many of the weakest would starve in the meantime.

 

Until people can grow their own food and build their own shelter, then to say that people are forced to pay for them is a joke. These people like the ones who are complaining they are forced into a system where they must work on the behalf of others and give u a portion of their labour, whilst doing so. And it is not the people on benefits, or the people who are working who benefit!

 

It is but a small group who by hook and crook claim the profits resulting from the labour of others as their own. Whilst denying people the ability to work for themselves, they do this through land and currency.

[chem1st]

If there was no NEST being diverted to financiers in the city of London, there could be an increased income tax instead, paid as a direct cash subsidy to the elderly, equally in the form of state pension. That would be fairer.

 

Much like if rents were lower, and if planning permission wasn't required to build a shelter, housing would be cheaper.

[smithy266]

Opt out and shove your cash under the mattress. Been self employed for 30 years, and my pension has been slashed from 400 a month to 130. Trust no-one.

[chem1st]

Opt out and shove your cash under the mattress. Been self employed for 30 years, and my pension has been slashed from 400 a month to 130. Trust no-one.

 

Better of saving in something other than 'cash' though, paper money is first devalued then demoneterised, admittedly after many years, it does again gain value for collectors.

[Nagel]

The government are offering free money in the form of a tax break on personal contributions. They are also forcing companies to contribute to their employees pension fund, so in effect it's a pay rise. That has to be a good thing surely?

 

It doesn't apply to me so I ticked the box "Not applicable to me (Foreign/retired)". I'm neither foreign nor retired, but it was the closest category. I work for a US company and get paid in Dollars, so the UK legislation doesn't affect me and I won't be affected by NEST.

 

But my company already has a scheme like this which I've been enrolled in for years.

[truman]

The government are offering free money in the form of a tax break on personal contributions. They are also forcing companies to contribute to their employees pension fund, so in effect it's a pay rise. That has to be a good thing surely?

 

It doesn't apply to me so I ticked the box "Not applicable to me (Foreign/retired)". I'm neither foreign nor retired, but it was the closest category. I work for a US company and get paid in Dollars, so the UK legislation doesn't affect me and I won't be affected by NEST.

 

But my company already has a scheme like this which I've been enrolled in for years.

 

I know what you're saying but how can it be classed as a payrise? Everyone who enrols will be getting less in their paypacket every week and, depending on the amount of pension at the end, could be losing out on benefits by being a pound or so above the income limit for them...they'd be worse off in both cases..while working and when retired..it's not always win-win...

[frededwards]

Opt out and shove your cash under the mattress. Been self employed for 30 years, and my pension has been slashed from 400 a month to 130. Trust no-one.

 

I agree 100%.

I can think of no three groups of people I would trust less with my money than this (or any subsequent) government, the financial services “industry” and the management that run any company I’ve ever worked for in this country..

 

A bigger collection of incompetent/crooked shysters you will struggle to find.

[Anna B]

Some of us tried to do that and have ended up not much better off for our efforts. At the moment, it is debatable if its worth saving for a pension that takes you just a little bit over the means tested levels of pension credit. Pension credit has been the greatest disincentive to lower paid workers saving for their retirement.

 

As there are no checks on how much someone earned and potentially could have saved, people could spend every penny before retirement, and be eligible for pension credit. That entitlement is a passport to council tax benefit; housing benefit; cold weather payments; free dental treatment etc. Those of us who took responsibility but couldn't build up a sizeable pension have to pay for everything ourselves and the net result is often just a few pounds in our pocket. Seems just a tad unfair.

 

I agree up to a point, but could I just scotch this rumour that people with no pension are feckless individuals who have spent every penny on booze fags and high living.

A great many people today are on the breadline with every penny they earn going on bills and feeding their family. They are barely keeping their head above water and there is simply nothing left to pay into a pension.

[freeman78]

Some of us actually take responsibility for how we are going to fund out retirement and will noy be just relying on the state. I've no intention on living on just the £107 per week or whatever the state pension will be.

Personally I think its a good idea.

If you don't want to contribute then opt out. You don't need to make a big song and dance about it! You have plenty of time and oppurtunity do do it.

The Goverment aren't forcing you to do it, there's no gun to your head.

IMO you will be foolish NOT to do it.

 

i thought thats why we pay ni so that when we are old we are all looked after,

and he isnt making a song and dance he is sharing information that some ppl may find difficult to locate or are just unaware that they could opt out as i didnt know due to the lack of information the government have put out and the information they have put out is all sugar coated.

 

i think that it is yet another stealth tax