No, he seems to think, and certainly do think that BMC/Leyland/Rover were incapable of building cars to an acceptable standard. The UK designs and builds some of the worlds most desirable cars, despite the fact that some of its citizens buy ugly kraut s**te in preference to home-grown style and comfort.
Indeed they do, and they either manage it like the French and Italians by massive state aid to prop up failing industries or like other countries by making vehicles that people want to own.
In the UK we apply the later model with some success and the UK motor industry is in better shape now than it was in the 70s/80s. Rover is where it deserves to be, forgotten other than by a few cardigan wearers.
I think in the eyes of anyone other than those raised as Trots the unions became the architects of their own misfortunes.
That's untrue. Gordon Brown's stealth taxes on pension funds currently remove about £6 billion a year from pensions.
The tax rules were changed so that pensions have to pay tax on dividends received from their investments. It is untrue to state that "no tax is payable until a pension is taken", because tacx is paid on every dividend received by a pension fund.
The rest of your drivel is the usual self-serving Labour clap trap which tries to disguise a raid on pension funds as "business as usual".
Steve Firth (%steve%@malloc.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
I dunno about Fiat, but I wouldn't say that either PSA or Renault were "failing industries" "propped up" by the state.
Renault made north of $1bn income on $40bn turnover last year, a decade after privatisation, after the costs of propping Nissan up. PSA made less profit - only about Eur180m - but on Eur56bn turnover.
Wrong, nothing is removed from pension funds. A little less money is added in each year from dividend payments. It's not a stealth tax, the system is quite transparent and open.
Wrong again. Pension funds do not pay tax. Dividends are paid out of a companies taxed profits. Pension funds can no longer claim a tax refund.
Wrong again. They can no longer claim a refund of tax already paid by someone else.
Wrong again. I am certainly no fan of either old or nu Labor. My "drivel" is the cold facts rather than the emotive clap trap spouted by yourself and others.
You are free to suggest it but it would not be regarded as acceptable. By way of a compromise I would propose the following alternatives :
"Labour presided over the closure of more pits under 6 years of Wislon than the Conservatives did under 11 years of Thatcher."
Or, if you like :
"There were more coal mines and rust belt industries in the north east closed by Calligan in the 4 years before Thatcher got in than she closed in the 4 years after.
Which do you like best ?
BTW. I refer to Sunny Jim, Baron Calligan of Cardiff as Calligan in memory of my late mother who coined the term.
Double taxation is taxation. Pensions are taxed on the earnings made on investment during the growth period of the pension, and taxed again when the pension is paid. That you don't know this makes you look, well dumb really.
It wouldn't, because the easiest coal to win had already been taken. Mining had been in trouble since the turn of the century. See here :
formatting link
mines practically touching each other.
It was almost finished by the time she got in.
For years we had foregone burning natural gas in power stations, it had been kept in reserve as a premium fuel to burn in central heating boilers and use as chemical feedstock, everybody knew it was not inexhaustible.This was harming our competitiveness with the countries on the continent that had no qualms about it. Coal was running out and what we had left was getting even more expensive to mine. If we were burning as much coal today as in the '60s the British mines would be uneconomic compared with coal from Poland (which we would not be able to keep out of the country) and from many other places.
Well, Scargill scarcely made a positive contribution to alleviating the problems of the coal industry.
How do the fund managers pay this tax? What rate is it levied at? Go on, make me look even dumber, I can take it.
The earnings are paid to the fund net of tax. the fund pays no further tax.
That's never been at issue in this thread. That's a tax on the pensioners income, subject to the prevailing allowances and tax rates, not a tax on the pension fund.
You're not presenting yourself in a very good light.
No the underlying investment is taxed before the fund gets it.
Guess what? I don't care, it makes no difference to me.
The exchequer takes about £ 7 billion per annum which would have gone into pension funds had the Chancellor not changed the rules.
FSVO "Small" to the tune of £7 billion per year.
I've invented a perpetual motion machine, you need a lot of old men and a very tall building. the old men raise themselves up to the roof by pulling on their bootsraps and climb on an overshot paddle wheel and as they descend the wheel drives a generator.
Hmmm, Maybe Hilary Benn could get me some funding ...
I digress. On 2nd thoughts maybe I should keep my odd ball ideas to myself and the Chancellor should refrain from experimenting in / micromanaging the country's pensions.
I'm afraid I see it as a mealy mouthed excuse for taking more tax in such a way that the people who end up being deprived of the cash have no way to evaluate how much they are losing. It's about as credible as Basil Fawlty trying to explain away his sooty handprints on the Australian girls breasts.
Yes, we all got advised to move to a less volatile fund at 12 months before retirement. Standard proceadure I believe.
I don't know where that quite gets us when the market has been unstable for Ca. 8 years on the trot.
They pay tax on the dividends, but do they pay tax on capital gains? One of the reasons for the change AIUI was that pension funds were putting pressure on companies to pay out dividends rather than reinvesting profits to grow the business and in time increasing the share price. IOW, as so often in the city, their responsibility was to ensure the sound financing of pensions over a 10, 20, 30+ year period, but having nice figures at the end of the quarter was the driver.
As reliable as the negotiating position with Mr Putin and Gazprom, which is fairly limited and precisely the reason why a new generation of nuclear generation needs to be commissioned now without wasting time and money on windmills and tidal dams.
I learnt a great deal. In respect to Baroness Thatcher, whether one agreed or disagreed with her activities and policies, there was never any confusion about where she stood on pretty much every significant issue. I think that that is a far better situation to have than that that we have had from all of her successors whose approaches have ranged from weakness to telling people what they want to hear to reneging on specific commitments with significant impact.
Certainly he was one of them. One cannot have a situation of somebody in a position like that holding the economy to ransom.
Unions, in the final analysis, can't protect any jobs. It is the individual's responsibility to look beyond collectivism at whether the business in which he works is tenable.
The coal industry had become untenable. In part that was because of years of underinvestment, in part because of union misbehaviour and in part because of political unacceptability. Nobody should believe that by joining some collective organisation that they are afforded protection of their job. That is naive in the extreme.
No I don't. There are still a few small companies that seem to be able to manage it, although TBH I'm not particularly interested in cars anyway.
Actually not. History has clearly shown that it is not possible in the case of companies like Leyland-->Rover. One can list a bunch of contributing factors such as union misbehaviour, incompetent management, meddling governments, inappropriately applied government subsidies. I visited the Coventry plant and Longbridge on business on quite a number of occasions during the 80s and 90s and it was very obvious that these were businesses going through their death throes. There were people that had been there for decades probably loyally working towards retirement but caught like rabbits in a succession of different headlights, without clear leadership or empowerment. On one occasion, they'd be walking around in jackets, ties and trousers, next time it would be Japanese style work suits, but really it didn't make any difference. Ultimately it's company culture, work ethic and above all good leadership that make the difference to a business. Unions are irrelevant to that.
They've already closed our post office (last year)
We'd had one for well over 150 years in our village, which isn't isolated, and isn't smal it's 3 miles from Leeds city centre, and the population had gone from maybe 1,000 agricultural and tannery workers living an ordinary run of the mill poverty existence to 20,000 dormitory habitees with 2-3 cars per household, and many small businesses.
It beggars me why we can't do now, with all the appurtenances of modern technology, (IE Motor Vehicles) what they could do in the
1870's IIAC in 1870 you could post a letter at 6-00pm here and have it delivered in London the next morning.
IIAC you could post a postcard to the butcher at 10-00am and have your order delivered that same afternoon.
Which beats TESCO's online service into a cocked hat.
According to the Beeb, the 800 "quietest" sub Post Offices have less than 17 customers a ... week. That isn't a business. It isn't even a hobby. It's a nonsense.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.