Election result

GB abolished Advance Corporation Tax in 1999. This massively impacted on pension funds reducing their actuarial valuations.

Nor his daughter!

Yes rose - what Robert Maxwell did was appalling. He was a member of the Labour Party I believe - his sons got away with it I think . I bet they are not living in poverty

What GB did was to tax dividend income on investments that were held in private pensions.

So anyone who has a private pension, big or small, effectively pays tax twice - once on the income that's reinvested in the pension pot before you start drawing your pension, and then again on the income you receive from it.

Many people have lost income in retirement as a result of this and few people noticed it was happening.

I remember hearing about it on the car radio years ago, I think on Moneybox.

SisterIL's firm was part of the Mirror group

There has been a lot of jiggery pokey with pension pots. When companies where privatised for one thing and also the asset stripping of companies when failing companies were bought simply for their pension pot assets. I think company pensions are better protected now

Sorry rose , misread post, you did make that point

But rose - for completeness, wouldn't the pensions also have been higher if the firms hadnt taken the contribution holidays?

Gordon's nifty little trick was to stop pension fund investments being exempt from tax on dividends as far as I remember.

Our pension funds would have been much higher if he had not made them pay tax on dividends. But his tax revenue would not have been boosted
A lot of firms took 'pension holidays' and there was a lot of controversy about it. The stock market was buoyant and they thought they could afford to do that. Then came 2000 and a downturn in the stockmarket.
Now people with small pensions may have to claims benefits they would have not needed to claim had the firms paid in what they should, followed by Gordon's tax raid.

Neither are you, of course, durhamjen!

Mollie, in your post of 12.40, why did you only highlight the Labour and Libdem seats?
The number of Tory seats was also unfair to Labour and Libdem.
You aren't biased, are you?

I really smile at the thought of Ed Balls being regarded as a great economist _ he proved that when both he and his wife economised by each claiming for a second home didn't he? Now whose money was that......

Labour were going to restrict tax relief on higher rate pensions, not raid pension pots. If you are a higher rate tax payer, you get more tax relief on your pension contributions than a basic rate tax payer.
Seems quite fair to me.

GrannyTwice and I were talking about over thirty years ago, before Gordon Brown was able to raid pensions. What happened to those pensions happened under Thatcher.

Didn't Gordon Brown do a little footwork re pensions, or have I got that wrong too. I thought he keeps being accused of a 'pension grab'.

Can'_t remember what it was paying for, kept changing but didn't Labour keep saying they were taking from higher earner pension pots again?, I think it was to fund apprenticeships or something like that. That would of course include a lot of public sector workers too.

and DJ - if you did not understand I was trying to point out that the whinging about not having a majority (qed a majority would be more than 50%) was not possible and as far as I knew it did not happen in any election (I now know it was in 1925)
to repeat - no party in recent history has obtained a majority of the votes because of the 3 party (and more system)
is that sufficient explanation ?

for all you stats lovers

in 2010
Conservative - 36% of vote and 306 seats
labour - 29% of vote and 258 seats
Liberals - 23% of vote and only 57 seats

some unfairness there.

Mollie, this is what you said.

"what percentage of voters voted in labour in 1997 and 2005 - I think you will find that they did not get more than 50% of the vote either. that is the way it worked with FPTP"

What I was saying was true. Nobody has had more than 50% of the vote since 1929. So why did you choose 50%? The last Tory to have over 40% was John Major in 1992.
In this election the combined share of the vote is 67.2%, even less than in 2005, so what is your point?

After years of wrangling, it was John Prescott who said to give the bus employees the money, then argue about it later.

actually in 2005 : (remember that election)

'In the UK as a whole just over 27 million valid votes were cast from a total
eligible electorate of over 44 million. Over three quarters of a million
additional votes were cast in 2005 than in 2001. Labour’s share of the UK
vote was 35.2% and that for the Conservatives was 32.4% - a combined twoparty vote of just 67.6%. This is the lowest combined Conservative/Labour share at a UK election since 1923. The Liberal Democrats finished in third place, receiving support from more than one in five voters (22%).'
what I was pointing out was that no-one gets a clear majority and in fact the less than 3% difference in votes in 2005 resulted a big disparity in number of seats
so all those whinging about the fact that 60% of the population did not vote for the winning party is just laughable when you check out the facts -

GrannyTwice, your post of 11.05 could have been talking about my dad.
He was a bus driver, and the Tory government took money from the pension pot and changed the arrangements before he retired.
The union fought for reinstatement when they found out about it. My dad got a big lump sum after he had been retired 20 years, which was immediately taxed, as it counted as income for just that year. He died 18 months later.
He could have done with that money spread out over the previous 20 years. It would have given my parents a bit more dignity in their retirement. They would not have had to apply for housing benefit.

Thank for the stats Jen.

Mollie65, only one election has had any party getting more than 50% and that was in 1929. However, in 1997 and 2001 Labour did get over 40%.

*Granny Twice

You really have a problem with the truth and others expressing their comments don't you.*

I disagree with thatbags comment about the treatment of EM by the press, I disagree with your sweeping generalisation of the unions and that's my having a problem with the truth and others expressing comments
What both you and bags said was not the 'truth' but your opinions. I disagreed with them and explained why. Perhaps you could explain why that is my having a problem ( as opposed to your having a problem being challenged)?

Well yes. But I still don't know who wgran is, so it's a bit hard to follow.

Yes I would POGs if he had made a sweeping negative statement about the unions in general