Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#1
Courtesy Independent.
Inequality exists not only in the Public Spending Review Cuts but also increasingly so,in our pensions.
The Pension pots of the rich have soared Seventy Percent in ten years.
Top directors enjoying £ One Million pensions.Directors Pensions have doubled to over £ 30,000 pa.Joe public pension at average £ 7,000.pa
The Pensioners on Basic State Pensions are suffering the most but are now joined by Public Sector and Industrial workers,teachers,nurses who will have to work longer than retirement age and pay more just to close in on the `black hole`
Pension groups are branding the gold plate pension pots of the wealthy as obscene and highlights the real pension scandal in Britain today.Two thirds of Private companies do not pay one penny towards their workers pension and yet top up their executives pensions.
Pension Campaign UK call on the Government to control `Obscene` Private Sector Funds.
Not holding breath.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#2
funny reg isnt it
according to others this is not the case
and theres a need to screw public sector workers
just shows reg theres again more to this story that has been told in the past.
not sure that will help leaderless dave
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
thanks indeed reg, what i found the most interesting was the bit about private companies topping up their executives pension pot whilst ignoring the staff.
the "us and them" society is with us now more than ever.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
not according to some posters howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
What an utterly silly article and thread born out of a lack of understanding of pensions and the pension rules. Reg's class war has reached the heights of absurdity.
A few facts for you - simple facts.
There is a limit, called a Lifetime Allowance, set by the Treasury, on the size of pension funds. Under rules set when this system was introduced by Brown in 2006 the size of pension funds for an individual this year is limited to £1.8million (that is size of fund, not income by the way). As a result of the last budget that amount is to be reduced next tax year to £1.5million.
Any funds that accumulate in excess of the Lifetime Allowance is heavily taxed. Any excess of pension fund that you have above the Lifetime Allowance is taxed at 55% taken as a lump sum
The only exceptions to this are those who in 2006 when the system was introduced, who already had very large pensions and applied for transitionary protection.
In addition Brown set a Annual Allowance for pension contributions which last year was £255,000. George Osborne reduced that to £50,000.
So, yes that's right. The ability to have massive pension pots and high contributions was set by Brown and George Osborne has reduced both.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#6
Brown and George Osborne, Brown has a first name as well or does he not deserve the same courtesy?
Audere est facere.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
Brown deserves no courtesy at all Martin. The man was a total disaster for this country over 13 years of utter incompetence. You need only to read what was written by his former colleagues and allies to see that so you don't have to take my word for it.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#8
You believe them when they are criticising their own, why is their opinion on any other matter of no value? I appreciate you despise all things political that are not right wing that is your choice, but to cherry pick comments from the dark side and quote them does you no credit at all.
Audere est facere.
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
#9
Let's get more local on pensions and bosses. Anyone know what BoB Goldfields pension pot is? I heard a rumour but won't spread it in case it is false...let's just say it was a lot!
Keeps politics to myself
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#10
I don't want to state something false here, but do believe that many a chief executive and the like has established a private insurance to boost their pension.
While earning high salaries/bonuses, they probably invested a bit of it in life insurances and perhaps in shares too, so can probably boast an income that exceeds their pension.
Just to add a little insult to injury
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
#11
You can't blame them, if we were in their position wouldn't you do the same. I'd like to think I had a little more awareness of how my decisions are effecting those 'beneath me', however money corrupts no matter what ppl say!
Keeps politics to myself
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Alexander - pension (death in service) life assurance is included in the Lifetime Allowance. It hardly helps boost their pension if they are dead to get it.
You may mean insurance investment funds - again part of the Lifetime allowance.
There are other ways to invest other than pensions of course all subject to different tax rules, benefits and disadvantages. We all have these opportunities out of our taxed income.
There are some very high risk investments that provide tax relief such as VCT's but these are to encourage investment help to small businesses.
I am not going on to complicate matters with mention of EFURBS (Employer Financed Retirement Benefit Schemes) - they are quite rare and I have never seen one directly. They are taxed on the underlying funds at the high trust rate and subject to income tax and subject to periodic and exit charges.
#13
Bob Goldfinger and the Harbour Board Pension pot is HUGE
that is apart from the pay offs and payouts they are expecting from privatisation is nothing short of legalised theft......................
No point in having all the political snide remarks.....Each party is a bad as the other.................in this......
What the majority of pensioners have to manage on ,in this Country, is shocking really..............................
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#14
Barry, by life insurance, I meant an insurance that is paid out monthly or yearly for life once it matures.
Charlie, if they asked for golden parachutes in the DHB privatisation proposals, then they s'at in their own nest, because it wouldn't benefit the Port of Dover.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
i wonder if mr goldfield will find much use for his concessionary bus pass?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
Alexander - then perhaps you must mean annuities bought from pensions funds, once again subject to the Lifetime Allowance. The income is subject to returns on 15 year gilts and mortality rates with cross subsidy from those who die early. There are enhanced rates available to those with medical conditions or those who's lives are impared due to lifestyle choices like smoking.
Or you could mean Purchased Life annuities, these are nothing to do with pensions but are a way of investing your capital for an income some of the income is treated as a return of capital and not taxed while the balanced is taxed.
There again you could mean qualifying savings plans, high on charges and taxed while invested, provided some rather inflexible rules regarding contributions are held to then the proceeds are tax free taken usually as a lump sum but you can take the proceeds in instalments with some if not a fixed term product. The fixed term products are endowments! not a fan of these myself and are rather old fashioned.
None of the above carry any particular benefit for directors and everyone might use them.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#17
The Twists and Turns the Finance Johnnies have and use to benefit the already ``Most Fortunate``in Society with their Pensions are obvious to all but they are not available or usefull to Joe Public.
The same applies to the Twist and Turns the Finance Johnnies have and use for the ``Most Fortunate`` in our Society to drastically reduce their Tax Bill and contribution to the National pot.
Joe public has no choice they pay all the way.
``We are all in this together``................Nahhhhh.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
Again Reg - this is something you need to find out about before commenting as you clearly have no knowledge of the matter on which you make such statements.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#19
Reg all those products mentioned by Barry are available to Joe Public as long as he keeps abreast of the savings and investment scene (or has an IFA). Always assuming of course that he saved some of his income instead of blowing it all on foreign holidays.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#20
peter;
i have been more in tune with some of your more recent postings
but the last needs some comment.
many people i know cannot afford a holiday, let alone a holiday abroad.
a lot are fighting to keep the wolves from the door.
we cannot move away from the fact of the earnngs of many of these FAILED bankers at the top cannot in todays clmate be justified.
nothing as barryw will say jelousy, but more to do with david camerons words of
ALL IN IT TOGETHER
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
