Brexit

[Observer II]

A sad fact Asp:  which merely demonstrates that these multi-nationals have zero national interest, merely profit motive, so it's no surprise that they wish to counter the will of the people..   

[asperity]

Of course they have a profit motive, that's the whole point of owning a manufacturing business! What would you rather do, have a nationalised car industry? Worked so well the last time didn't it? Or perhaps ban multi-national companies from having an interest in British manufacturing? Maybe go the whole hog and stop imports and exports completely and only consume British made goods/British grown food?

[Observer II]

You got there before me Asp !        

[asperity]

Back to the Dark Ages it is then.

[Observer II]

It's about a nation controlling it's own economy, part the reason for Brexit; otherwise democracy (the will of the people) counts for nothing, being subject to the corporate interests of the multi-nationals. No doubt post-Brexit, the Tories will bribe them with lower and lower corporate taxation, to feed their exploitative nature, and perhaps it will work, until other countries do the same.   

[Davy51]

Unfortunately, so many of our once big companies are now overseas or European owned ,& what were once stand alone major manufacturers are now only subsidiary outposts of  non UK conglomerates. Apart from using the sell off strategy to break the Trade Union power of the 60s/70s , much has been sold off to shore up the faltering economy of the 70s/80s & no doubt many shareholders have gained fatter bank accounts too.

[Observer II]

Your right of course Dave, over that period we dumped industrial production in order to rely on the financial services of the City of London, creating a relative physical and mental wasteland north of Watford Gap.   We are now dependent on foreign owned multi-nationals that control our productive industries and even our utilities.   This allows the corporations to play off nations against each other, with threats of pullouts etc;  they honour no flag, just the greed of their shareholders.  Hopefully, the Plebs (not the politicians) are starting to put their aspirations first and we can see it happening throughout the Western world. 

[asperity]

Yes something must be done about those greedy pension funds holding shares in overseas companies. It's better that our OAP's live in poverty than foreigners make a profit

[Observer II]

   Well it certainly won't apply in the future, the snowflakes aren't saving - just spending what they haven't got.     As for the rest, dividends are proportional to the level of investment, so most may have to work longer.  

[Confused52]

Asp, I won't ignore it. Your point about existing pensioners being dependent on the performance of the foreign owned companies disparaged by Obs is a very valid one which people wrongly ignore.

[Observer II]

Your obviously discussing "private" pensions, which a majority don't have, and even less will in future, because a realistic level of saving to provide a decent living pension is not affordable to most youngsters, most of whom can't even get on the housing ladder. In fact, they'll be lucky to get a meaningfull "state" pension in the future, hence the increases in the retirement age.   

[asperity]

3 hours ago, Observer II said:

Your obviously discussing "private" pensions, which a majority don't have, and even less will in future, because a realistic level of saving to provide a decent living pension is not affordable to most youngsters, most of whom can't even get on the housing ladder. In fact, they'll be lucky to get a meaningfull "state" pension in the future, hence the increases in the retirement age.   

Well how very short sighted of the majority then! It isn't as if it hasn't been obvious for a very long time that if you want a decent pension you have to start investing in one at an early age, and since company pension funds started disappearing 30 odd years ago this has been a must do for most people now approaching retirement age. I don't get your "private" pensions dig at all Obs. A state pension isn't anything more than a pittance if you haven't saved for your retirement, unless you are fortunate enough to work in the "Public Sector". People need to realise that they have to be responsible for their future, Corbyn won't look after them. The point is that for people who have had the foresight to invest in pension funds, the fact that the pension funds are major shareholders in foreign companies is very important, so to call these pension funds "greedy" is ignorance of the highest order worthy of someone who understands nothing of how the world works.

[Confused52]

And, one of the assumptions behind the level chosen for the New State Pension is that everyone will have a private pension in future. That is the reason for auto-enrolment. If people don't take the pension they will be throwing away their employer's contributions so only fools will not have a personal pension. The reality is not likely to be the same as the moaning.

[Observer II]

Think tis you guys who need the reality check; as with housing, pensions are simply not affordable to the young and poorly paid, even if they could even think on the subject at such an early age. So, to suggest that the majority of Plebs somehow depend on multi-national corporations as a ticket to a wholesome retirement, is a straw being grasped.  A share owning democracy is as much a Tory fantasy as their home owning democracy - OK, if your wealthy enough.

[Davy51]

I think it also depends on whether you are a committed  worker who sees the benefits of a good job & saving in a pension fund or a card carrying shirker who is happy to  let the state fund his 50 plus years of pre retirement. I think there will be little difference between the two when entering the pearly gates of retirement ,especially when shirker man gets his associated benefits on top of his State Pension.

[asperity]

6 hours ago, Observer II said:

Think tis you guys who need the reality check; as with housing, pensions are simply not affordable to the young and poorly paid, even if they could even think on the subject at such an early age. So, to suggest that the majority of Plebs somehow depend on multi-national corporations as a ticket to a wholesome retirement, is a straw being grasped.  A share owning democracy is as much a Tory fantasy as their home owning democracy - OK, if your wealthy enough.

So, because you didn't bother to invest in a pension fund relying on multi-nationals to build up the pension pot, then you think nobody shouldd be allowed to do it? How very non-democratic of you Obs. Meanwhile those of us who did do so are still paying tax to support those who didn't. Doesn't sound very fair to me.

[Davy51]

In my opinion ,there are a couple of points that tend to put the mockers on the reality of company or private pensions ,don't get me wrong i have a decent company pension.

I think ,with a private or company pension it is necessary to get the required number of years in & that is not always possible ,or indeed probable, with the fragile labour market of today & the reality of part time jobs ,agency work & zero hours contricks. Workers with less than the required number of payments could  be worse off than Idle Jack come judgement day.

I think another obstacle for Prudent Man is also the prospect of necessary care in later life. Any notion of self progression & self sufficiency in later life  can be hamstrung by having to pay ,when you have strived all your working life ,while Idle Jack gets it all for nothing  & has been able to watch every episode of Jeremy Kyle while you have been hard at work.

[Observer II]

3 hours ago, asperity said:

So, because you didn't bother to invest in a pension fund relying on multi-nationals to build up the pension pot, then you think nobody shouldd be allowed to do it? How very non-democratic of you Obs. Meanwhile those of us who did do so are still paying tax to support those who didn't. Doesn't sound very fair to me.

I never suggested that people shouldn't "be allowed" to invest in a pension scheme, merely that to many, they are unaffordable, if your planning to live off them.  So the issue has nothing to do with "democracy", other than the effect that big corporations have on political decision making (which is where we started);  it has to do with affordability.  But to paint multi-nationals as some kind of altruistic benefactor is frankly ludicrous, they exist simply to make a profit for share holders and the more shares you can afford, the bigger the dividend.   As I've said, big corporations hold no allegiance to flag, country or it's people; as Harley-Davidson are in the process of proving.

[asperity]

7 hours ago, Observer II said:

I never suggested that people shouldn't "be allowed" to invest in a pension scheme, merely that to many, they are unaffordable, if your planning to live off them.  So the issue has nothing to do with "democracy", other than the effect that big corporations have on political decision making (which is where we started);  it has to do with affordability.  But to paint multi-nationals as some kind of altruistic benefactor is frankly ludicrous, they exist simply to make a profit for share holders and the more shares you can afford, the bigger the dividend.   As I've said, big corporations hold no allegiance to flag, country or it's people; as Harley-Davidson are in the process of proving.

I never suggested anything of the sort, but pension funds invest in these big companies because it makes financial sense, and the big companies use pension fund money also because it makes financial sense.  I also didn't suggest that they were democratic or hold any allegiance to anyone but their shareholders. I would suggest to the young and poorly paid that they think about their future before they invest what little money they have in the latest mobile phone, 50" HD television, holiday in Majorca etc and put some of it away safely.

[Observer II]

   Well, it took a while, but you finally came to the usual accusation in your last sentence, you forgot of course, the booze and the fags, and possibly the horses.   To youngsters, assuming they're thinking of settling down, pensions aren't even on their radar,  first will be a home, possibly for the kids they didn't mean to have, who will no doubt attend the wedding !    Now fortunately, some public service jobs, don't provide a choice, it's part of the terms of employment to join the pension scheme. Now theoretically, pension schemes apply to everyone, even if you work in a small shop, and whilst it's a legal requirement, so is the minimum wage. Whether these schemes will deliver sufficient pension in retirement is open to question; but any system that delivers a reasonable living standard in retirement will generally be a budget blocker for most low paid workers. and that's assuming they have a steady job with a respectable employer, and not part of our new "gig" economy with it's zero hour contract scenarios etc. As for pension funds; of course, like the wealthy, they have £billions to invest, but this will be on behalf of millions of little investors, so to each individual investor, were not talking about a huge amount, still a better return than a bank saving account these days.  However, getting back to the original point;  we have these corporations trying to dictate to Government (in this case over BREXIT),  with no electoral mandate, save project fear, fear for their workforce and the nation's economy, so not so democratic at all, is it.

[asperity]

You'll have to forgive me but I seem to have mislaid my violin Obs. I repeat, it's up to everybody to provide for their retirement themselves. The fact that a great number of people don't even give it a second thought (to the extent that the government has had to make it a requirement now that workers are in some sort of scheme however inadequate). I'm not responsible for other peoples' lack of interest in their future, but that doesn't mean I don't have to pay tax on my pension to support them.

If I may quote part of your rant:

As for pension funds; of course, like the wealthy, they have £billions to invest, but this will be on behalf of millions of little investors, so to each individual investor, were not talking about a huge amount, still a better return than a bank saving account these days.

Doesn't even make sense, it certainly doesn't rhyme so it isn't poetry. Lets face it Obs you've got a bee in your bonnet about anyone - singular or as a company - turning a profit and therefore want to see any system which allows profit making destroyed.

[Observer II]

Errm nope:   I'll return to the origin of my rant, which was the threats coming from corporations over Brexit, overt political interference by unelected entities. and they have the nerve to call Cambridge Analytica or the Russians.  You then converted it into a rant about their value to pension schemes, which I don't dispute. What I do dispute, is the fact that a reasonable pension pot is unattainable to most of the great unwashed, as they simply haven't the money to afford it, just like they haven't got the money to afford a mortgage.  That's how it's always been and not likely to change in the near future.

[Davy51]

Project Fear seems to be fixated with profit warnings & attributing everything to Brexit & the uncertainty surrounding it. Maybe these retailers are peddling crap that nobody  wants  to buy & their customers are finding better  & cheaper alternatives on line. This country traded with the world long before we became part of an inwardly looking bloc that used a trading partnership as bait to ensnare the political, judicial & sovereign aspects of the UK. The politicians who took us deeper into the EU for their own ends should hang their heads in shame.

[Observer II]

Think some backbone from Government may keep them quiet: BMW are now threatening to pull out of the UK, if we don't get a deal that suits them. Well, OK; if they do, hows about a 25% tariff on all BMWs imported into the UK,  might give them something to think about.

[Confused52]

Obs, your pension rant is not rational. For someone leaving education now with an auto-enrolment pension at 21 with a qualification (that is most of them) they would get a private pension equal in value to the state pension, so doubling retirement earnings. This assumes returns of one percent above inflation plus costs which is not unrealistic. That also assumes making the minimum payment to release the employers contribution and working to 68 with a reducing income from 63 onwards and that their pay is the current average in real terms taken over their whole career, again not overambitious. The problem is that left wing victim creation is able to get away with talking rubbish without being tested. If you disagree show your assumptions and or working!