Skip to content

Yep, he’s going to steal your pension

I disagree with Phillip. He ignores three things.

First, governments do not borrow; they take deposits. They are savings institutions, not borrowers.

Second, there are sources of deposit other than the City. As I repeatedly explain, ISAs and pensions could provide the required funding.

All the spending he wants done to be funded by your pension. With the usual Murphy mistake – he’s not worked out how that spending will make a return that is captured by your pension and so provide you with a future income.

Yes, I know, he says interest will be paid. But from what revenue stream? That’s the bit he’s not bridged. #

So, here’s an investment, it makes people better off. Very Good. But for investors to be better off some revenue stream must be captured by the investors. So, say we spend lots more on education. Just imagne. Or health. Imagine – hard, I know – that this works and society is richer as a consequence. Cool.

But what’s the revenue stream from education or health that flows to investors? We can even agree – assuming sensible spending etc, and har har – that the investing produces a societal profit. But that’s not enough. What’s the revenue stream captured by the investors?

Yes, this is important. Because think on to the next stage. If we manage to craft an investment package that produces a return to investors from investing in education/health then why wouldn’t investors happily invest in that? Well, actually, they would.

Government investment in such things is based upon the idea that a private return is not possible. But if a private return is not possible then we can’t gain private investment in such things, can we?

21 thoughts on “Yep, he’s going to steal your pension”

  1. The potato is not interested in paying a return. he justs sees a lovely pot of money he thinks he’s got a claim to because he’s the potential fat controller. Anyway what are pensioners going to spend their money on other than cruises ( an answer he gave about pensioners )when Johhny workshy and mohamedd goat fucker can only afford last years iphone

  2. Interesting. As well as advocating stealing people’s pensions, he’s complaining about the existance of “utterly unnesessary” regulatory procedures and accounting reporting.

    I’ll see if the latest knitting passes muster.

  3. Yep. Labor in Oz appear to have a few problems because their claims that they’d lower peoples costs has run up against the screech for evermore money from the organised gangs that support the Labor party.

    Where I’m expecting problems here in Qld is from the Labor party’s decision to run the Olympic games in Brisbane. Needless to say, no one is anxious to pay the billions it’ll cost to do this. I do wonder if Labor will imitate the Victorian party, and dump the idea. I notice Palaszczuk has resigned. Presumably she realised that the cash isn’t there.

  4. In his twitter rant about HMRC Spud manged to:

    Say that platforms such as eBay being required to supply financial information to HMRC was a bad thing.
    Say that banks should be required to supply financial information.
    That companies should be made to submit tax returns even when no liability was due
    That HMRC fining people for not submitting requested tax returns was bad because they might have no liability.

  5. It’s unsurprising – this ignorance is long standing: There’s an old Arabian proverb:

    He who knows not,
    and knows not that he knows not,
    is a fool; shun him.

    He who knows not,
    and knows that he knows not,
    is a student; Teach him.

    He who knows,
    and knows not that he knows,
    is asleep; Wake him.

    He who knows,
    and knows that he knows,
    is Wise; Follow him.”

    Murphy thinks he’s the fourth when in fact he’s the first of these examples. More concerning to me is the comment of Clive Parry – the ‘thinking man’s Murphy’.

    However, to pretend we “can have it all” is disingenuous; if we want better health, education and other public services we need to divert people and resources differently. Better public services will leave us all with fewer resources to deploy on other things and, as yet, the public have consistently refused to vote for this.

    Public spending is at an all time high – there’s 700 billion which we don’t have being spunked up the wall annually – and these people think the idea is that after a return which they acknowledge is:

    – An education system that generates morons
    – A justice system that punishes the innocent systematically while allowing the guilty to go free
    – A health system that kills people
    – Social services that institutionalize child abuse
    – A military which has no weapons and no soldiers

    To give more money is the answer? Delusion doesn’t even come close to covering it.

  6. If you’re under the age of about 45 or so, you’re not getting a pension.

    It’ll all be stolen and/or inflated away by the time you want to retire.

    Seedcorn status: et.

  7. Giving P Murphy the benefit of every doubt…what would the difference be between the pension afforded by his plan and the existing fund forecast?

    If the difference is greater then yay. But if it’s less or, even worse, if he couldn’t even be arsed to do the calculation…

  8. The only half-way logical conclusion is that the capital pension funds will be provided to Government, and in return Government will pay a certain level of income to the fund.

    That is, all pensions will be 100% invested in gilts.

    I’m not sure that sort of strategy iss recommended by many in the financial sector, or even many in Government.

  9. Dennis, Noting The Bright Light Emanating From Ely

    First, governments do not borrow; they take deposits. They are savings institutions, not borrowers.

    I don’t know what Richard Murphy is smoking, I don’t approve of it, and I want some.

  10. >But what’s the revenue stream from education or health that flows to investors? We can even agree – assuming sensible spending etc, and har har – that the investing produces a societal profit. But that’s not enough. What’s the revenue stream captured by the investors?

    I don’t think he cares. You’re just expected to die. Work as long as you can be worked, the government takes all your savings – and then you starve in the alley. To him, I think, this is a double-win – since you can’t work for the good of the government anymore you’re now not able to ‘leech’ off society.

  11. “Work as long as you can be worked, the government takes all your savings – and then you starve in the alley. ”

    But if thats the deal, then there’s no savings to expropriate in the long run. Because why would anyone bother saving if its going to be stolen off you and provide you with no return? If you’re going to end up starving in your old age, why forego consumption while you’re earning? Spend the lot before the thieving cunts can get their hands on it. So this ‘plan’ is a one off deal – you can steal everyone’s pension once, but don’t expect to be able to do it again and again.

  12. Martin Near The M25

    We seem to be making a decent argument for taking money out of pensions sooner rather than later, to avoid it being stolen.

    So, yet another disincentive to invest? I thought the King of the Potato People wanted more investment?

  13. The First Nations wanted to host the Winter Olympics in BC (again) but have it be indigenous led, I was pleasantly surprised when the provincial government refused to support the bid (on the basis province couldn’t afford it) which was a pre-requisite for taking it forward

  14. Hoping to retire in 2 years (earliest I can as I’ll be 55). Seriously considering taking the 25% tax free lump sum in one go even though it’s not the most efficient way to make use of the UFPLS.

    The reason, as mentioned by “Martin Near The M25”, I want to make sure that money is in my pocket and out of reach of the thieving twats in government.

  15. @Joe

    I might be wrong but I thought that the “25% tax free lump sum” refers to 25% of each lump sum you take being untaxed. So the other 75% of each lump would be taxed. Others may know better.

  16. @Rafe Tex

    You have a choice. In simple terms, you can either take 25% of your pension pot as a tax free ‘capital’ lump sum and are thereafter taxed on the rest in full as annual income draw down OR you can not take any ‘capital’ lump sum, and take it all out as annual income of which 25% each year is tax free.

    It can get more complicated than that, but that’s the basic choice.

  17. I was 55 a few days ago, and not looking to be able to afford to both pay the mortgage and buy food until 67 was looking at getting my hands on my pension. Unfortunately, it’s owned by the government and they refuse to pay anything out until I’m 67.

    I could sell my shop, but I worked out that after paying all the capital gains tax and paying off the mortgage, I’ll have enough money to ban me from claiming benefits for about six years, then it’s all gone.

    Shoulda just pissed it all up a wall in my 20s instead of slogging away trying to make provision for my future.

  18. >Jim
    January 15, 2024 at 7:28 pm
    “Work as long as you can be worked, the government takes all your savings – and then you starve in the alley. ”

    But if thats the deal, then there’s no savings to expropriate in the long run. Because why would anyone bother saving if its going to be stolen off you and provide you with no return?

    The government will force you to save – for your own good. Like Social Security over here. Then they’ll just take the money right out of the pot – like they do over here – with a ‘promise’ that tommorow’s children will pay you your dividend. And the dividend will be whatever they decide. Including 0 once everyone stops working.

    Also, he doesn’t really think about first order consequences, let alone second.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *