The problem with that is that any Government scrapping the state pension will be ripped to shreds, no matter how well they do it, so that's just not under consideration. They have to do something as the state pension is not enough any more, but imposing enrolment on everyone would be no different to increasing NI rates, which is another political no-no.
The stepped contributions idea is necessary as no lower-paid employee would afford 5% taken off them in one go, they'd all opt out, which spoils the point of AE. Even 8% overall is not going to get those employees much of a pension when they retire, and I worry that I'll fall into that bracket Steve Webb mentioned who won't be able to afford to retire as the state pension gets squeezed and retirement ages go up.
I'm surprised that Ken has nobody with employees staying in an AE scheme - when you say 'opt in', do you mean every employee that was AE'd has opted out? That's far from my experience in a payroll bureau.
So, to go beyond the question of who keeps what data etc:
do I need to encrypt every email to clients to ensure they are secure?
if so, is this something that goes on in the background if we have the right software, or do my clients need to have a password to open each of my emails?
taking this to a more extreme level, is a letter addressed to a person secure or can it be intercepted? Should we apply a ww2-like cipher for clients to decode?
or as with others, do we just carry on as normal and hope for the best??
I agree, otherwise why would the employer arrange a lease for its employee?
Surely the amount the employee is paying in this situation should then be treated as a contribution to the running costs of the vehicle and so a reduction in the chargeable benefit?
My laptop had begun to suffer some serious issues with Windows 7 - I believe something had corrupted which caused the system to crash after being on for around 20 mins. Trying to get it back just resulted in a black screen with a mouse pointer.
Having re-formatted the hard drive, I didn't want to risk staying on a potentially defective Win7, so while the system was still stable enough to do so, I upgraded to 10. If only laptops would still come with a disc when you buy them these days, I would have reinstalled 7. As others have noted, it looks good and works well. I also have a windows phone, but will be less inclined to upgrade that until 10 has been more thoroughly tested.
So far so good for my laptop, but from the experience of others I will be keeping my fingers crossed for the next few weeks...
I agree with Corbyn
Although I'm not sure that a Trident replacement is the most effective solution. Perhaps expanding the existing astute class of submarine fleet and equipping some with nuclear tipped cruise missiles would be more appropriate in this day and age.
I acknowledge that nukes aren't great against terrorist threats, but they are an excellent defence against a large foreign nation over-running your territory. Ukraine bitterly regrets giving up their stock of ex-Soviet ones.
Who knows what the threats will be in 30 years time. In my view, it's better to keep some sort of insurance policy.
The point being that Russia wouldn't have invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine (albeit perhaps by proxy) if Ukraine still had it's nuclear weapons. Except that, Russia still insists it didn't invade - there was no army marching into Ukrainian territory, just 'volunteers'. Would they have acted in the same way? If they had, would Ukraine really have launched?
I do agree with your basic point, but... As I understand it, Germany hasn't had much of an army since the war, and I'll be readily corrected in my belief that they don't have nukes. They've done pretty well without all them.
All the same, I don't see Britain as being subject to the same threat - we're not as readily invaded being an island, w have a sizeable standing army which is not in the disarray that Ukraine's was, and there's no hostile former ruler next door waiting to move in.
Even if we were to be invaded and we still have nukes, would our leader really push the button to kill millions - mostly innocent? It's a different situation with different defensive requirement.
I say scrap it.
If you only pay < LEL there is no need for a PAYE scheme, so no RTI reporting. However, as soon as anyone is paid above LEL, new employee presents a P45 or someone ticks box C on a P46, then you do need a scheme and so do need to report everything under RTI.