unbeliever Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 You understand my point though. #pedantry. I guess. You want to nationalise all pensions? I really don't think that's a good idea. But then I still have a defined benefits pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Yes that sounds feasible. Although I currently pay a lot of NI as it is. I know it's probably misguided and been funnelled into other directions, but I always had the vague notion NI was supposed to provide for pensions and healthcare...But these days I'm probably miles away. The employee by law needs to pay an extra 0.8% of their earnings minimum with the employer paying 1% minimum. Add those payments into NI but ring-fence them (as unbeliever pointed out NI isn't ring-fenced) and have them government managed rather than putting the onus onto the employer. Have the same minimum cut off as NI for the employee but the employer pays from zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 The employee by law needs to pay an extra 0.8% of their earnings minimum with the employer paying 1% minimum. Add those payments into NI but ring-fence them (as unbeliever pointed out NI isn't ring-fenced) and have them government managed rather than putting the onus onto the employer. Have the same minimum cut off as NI for the employee but the employer pays from zero. So a government managed investment fund? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 I guess. You want to nationalise all pensions? I really don't think that's a good idea. But then I still have a defined benefits pension. Not all pensions, just this one. Nothing stopping you having another privately held pension outside of the government stakeholder one at the moment either. If the government is forcing people to have pay into a scheme like this then I don't think it's unreasonable to have the government carry the risk and the work rather than forcing that onto the employer. I'm proposing something that I think works for both the employer and employee. The government could outsource the pension to a private company if that's how they wanted to go with things. It's not like an employee has a choice anyway, the employer decides where their stakeholder pension is held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 So a government managed investment fund? At some point we'd have a reincarnation of Gordon Brown pilfer it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 So a government managed investment fund? Potentially yes, if that's the most sensible way to do it, I have no problem with that. NI covered pensions and the state pension isn't feasible without massive change, so if this is the safest and 'best' way to go forwards then I'd be in support regardless of whether it's a private firm or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 At some point we'd have a reincarnation of Gordon Brown pilfer it. Well yes. But the state will pilfer our pensions every chance it gets no matter what form they take. The precedent was set way back with Ken Clark I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Well yes. But the state will pilfer our pensions every chance it gets no matter what form they take. The precedent was set way back with Ken Clark I think. Except that the 'owner' of the money would be you, in law, and therefore the government would not be allowed to touch it beyond managing the funds as best as possible to maximise the investment. No matter what that money MUST be locked away separately to any other government funds otherwise as Pete and you've stated might happen (oh we are short on doctors lets raid the stakeholder pensions fund, no one will know!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Except that the 'owner' of the money would be you, in law, and therefore the government would not be allowed to touch it beyond managing the funds as best as possible to maximise the investment. No matter what that money MUST be locked away separately to any other government funds otherwise as Pete and you've stated might happen (oh we are short on doctors lets raid the stakeholder pensions fund, no one will know!) Yes but right now, they simply raid pension funds with dedicated levies. There's no real protection. It seems still more risky to ask them to manage that which they're fond of robbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) PeteMoriss, I think you are right to worry about the incidence of ZHC .I think ZHC first put in an appearance round about 2007. God knows what impact this kind of income insecurity has on the individual's health. It is a political choice to allow the spread of insecure employment conditions. It will take political action to reverse such employment practices. You may find the link below of interest. It's rather long,but puts income insecurity into the context of global economics. http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Low-wages-and-job-insecurity-as-a-destructive-global-standard Edited March 14, 2017 by petemcewan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now