funduffer wrote:Nimrod103 wrote:
That ghastly Richard Murphy again. Only knows how to tax the industrious. Not how to actually make money.
Why don't you address the argument he is making rather than attacking the man himself?
Encouraging pension funds to invest in productive assets (with suitable safeguards) doesn't seem like a bad idea to me!
FD
To be fair, his arguments in this piece ARE statist, or rather authoritarian.
Some central, all knowing, body should dictate how "pensions" are "invested".
Sure there are good arguments about bonds and equities, UK centric or wider based. This piece assumes one argument, but from there that it should be enforced.
Personally I'm a fan of the "pension freedom" reforms, but many argue that they were bad. People without ability were required to consider what is in their best interest. Well that's the "little old lady" argument that I have been given. To be fair the WASPI women do make it clear that there are people who don't watch the news and think how will that affect me? I actually did think that people can and SHOULD make up their own minds. Even before "pension freedom".
If you want my opinion, I'd just like pensions to stay the same for a while. Not that it should effect me. I'm of an age to draw from DC schemes and my DB scheme, suffering over the years from changing government regulations, should start paying in five years.
BTW, can I draw everyone attention to the final words.
Pension investment could help transform this country. Pension saving cannot. It's a fundamental point that has to be understood.
SO let us be clear, the point of pensions are not to provide for the recipient! No they are for the benefit of the state. Are we serf's?