Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Re: Credit card borrowers laugh, savers cry
| Re: Credit card borrowers laugh, savers cry [message #377816] |
Do, 06 April 2006 11:02 |
|
Au wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2120856,00.htm l
>
> "
> MILLIONS of credit card users will have penalty charges slashed after
> companies were ordered to stop profiting from "fines" for late payments.
>
> The Office of Fair Trading said yesterday that credit card providers could
> only charge for the actual costs incurred in processing late payments, su=
ch
> as postage, stationery and staff costs and that penalties should be no mo=
re
> than =A312.
> "
>
> 1) They are businesses, they can charge what they like.
> 2) You sign up to these credit cards knowing full well that if you're late
> you will pay a penalty.
>
> So now it's the people that save that will have to prop up the borrowers
> yet again, not content with New Liebour wanting people with mortgages bei=
ng
> subsidised ever more by savers.
Absolutely. Here's Jeff Randall former BBC business editor in
yesterdays Telegraph warning that the Government will force the 'savers
of Middle Britain' to subsidise the feckless ........
New demand on the way for Middle Britain
By Jeff Randall (Filed: 05/04/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=3D/money/200 6/04/05/ccjeff0=
5=2Exml&menuId=3D242&sSheet=3D/money/2006/04/05/ixco ms.html
Here's the good news: you don't need to be a financial expert to
understand the Turner Commission's recommendations for our creaking
pensions system.
Never mind the details, its core conclusions are as obvious as Gordon
Brown's recent makeover: with public and private funds being bled dry,
we must all work longer, save more and spend less. That's it; dead
easy.
The bad news, however, is that common sense is rarely linked to the
Commons' sense of self-preservation, a desire shared by most MPs,
especially ministers, to be expedient rather than expendable.
Once looked at through the prism of their prejudices, the pensions
problem is instantly refracted into something much more difficult.
For success in contemporary politics generally involves promising the
electorate large dollops of jam today, while pushing payment for the
goodies so far into the future that few are able to calculate the true
cost.
Voters usually reward such largesse (to you and me, a bribe) by
electing or re-electing their political benefactors, while not knowing
or even caring that later generations will be forced to pick up a nasty
bill.
When the tab finally arrives, those who, when in power, willingly
sacrificed sustainable public finances on the altar of ballot-box
appeal are usually long gone, feet up, enjoying the benefits of a
gold-plated, state-funded retirement.
As a Cabinet minister told me last year: "The reason why Britain's
pensions problem has proved so intractable is that cracking it needs
governments to act in a way that runs directly counter to their
instincts for survival."
In other words, sorting out our pensions mess requires those in charge
to ignore the seduction of realpolitik and behave scrupulously. They
must tell the electorate the truth: a viable pensions system cannot be
achieved without pain, today.
As Turner points out, all parties - government, employers and workers -
must play their part, deferring gratification, forgoing immediate
consumption for benefits that only become apparent 20, 30 or even 40
years down the line.
It's not a new concept; it's called saving. It used to be fashionable.
But for many consumers in the see-it-want-it-have-it society, which
Britain has become, the idea of giving up anything, other than personal
responsibility, is quite simply a non-runner.
Under the guidance of Gordon Brown, state meddling in our affairs has
expanded to the point where almost seven in every 10 of all British
households today - 69pc -receive some form of government benefit.
It's the social equivalent of breast-feeding well into adulthood.
That said, most people aren't fools; they have worked out how to play
the pensions game. They know that, because of Brown's obscene expansion
of means testing, the cards are stacked against those who work hard and
try to save.
This doesn't affect the rich, of course. They will always have enough.
Neither does it matter much to those who genuinely have nothing; they
are the unfortunates for whom the safety net was built.
But for families on the margin, decent people struggling to make ends
meet without draining the public purse, there is now a strong
disincentive to be self-sufficient. The message to them is
soul-destroying: the feckless are favoured.
If you scrimp and scrape, tucking away a few quid whenever possible,
you're on your own. By contrast, if you've had the money but spent the
lot, don't worry, the welfare state will bail you out.
According to Turner, if there's no change to the current system, by
2050 about 75pc of all state pensions will be means tested. It's a form
of subjugation by handout.
As Sir Martin Jacomb, a former chairman of the Prudential, wrote
recently in The Spectator: "Perhaps it is all part of a plan [by
Labour] to insure that we have inadequate savings for retirement and
become dependent on the state."
Much of what Turner says will appeal to the reasonable man: in the long
run we can't expect something for nothing. But this doesn't chime with
life on the Brown Planet, where far from saving for tomorrow, millions
are busy spending money they don't have and will never earn.
How is Turner expected to persuade us that an extra provision for
pensions is not just desirable but necessary, when seven million of
Britain's 25 million households (28pc) have no savings at all? Talk to
them about topping up their pensions and they'll laugh, or perhaps cry.
In short, this debate is not about ends, but means. We all want better
pensions, but who will pay?
If the Government accepts Turner's proposals and there is an increase
in state funding, will the additional money come from new taxes, or
will it be filched from other departments, such as health and
education?
Brown and Blair are at each other's throats on that one - and you can
see why. Unfunded liabilities for state workers' pensions have now
risen to almost =A31,000bn, a sum the equivalent of twice the
government's total annual budget.
Having caved in to public-sector unions, by allowing current workers to
retire on a full pension at 60, against 65 and beyond for
private-sector employees, the Government has already made promises that
will be tough to keep - and Brown knows it.
So, if not the government, what about companies? Shouldn't they do
their bit?
Turner wants employers to be compelled to contribute to a new National
Pensions Savings Scheme but both the CBI and the British Chambers of
Commerce claim that such a plan would imperil many small businesses,
forcing some into bankruptcy.
Oh dear. The Government doesn't want to pay more, neither do the unions
and nor do the bosses (forget the scroungers, they never pay anything).
Which leaves just you. The typical Telegraph reader. Middle Britain.
The bit of the country that already coughs up disproportionately more
taxation than any other group.
Brace yourselves, a new demand is on its way.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 03:53:37 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02246 Sekunden |
