Pension

[Salaam]

Random question... are we allowed to save up for pension (from an Islamic point of view)?

I work in the NHS and opted out of the pension scheme when I joined but now that I've reached the grand old age of 25 I'm wondering whether I should join the pension scheme....

Is anyone here as old as me? Who else is saving?

[FractionMan]

Not me and i'm older than you.

[Salaam]

Are you planning to, though?

[sunilight]

i got one
ask ah1999 he is the money matters man

[Illuminate]

I am assuming that the pension fund you are opting for, means funds are deucted from your salary and also your employer will make the same contribution. There is nothing wrong with this kind of pension, as when you receive back the pension benefits, it is merely your own money - if you see what I mean. As for the contribution from employer this is considered a gift (hiba), so perfectly OK..

What is important that this is not insurance premiums whose return is based on external factors or events and is a form of gambling and interest is involve.

However, the only probelm is that the money should not be invested in haraam businesses, like alcohol, banks and so on. Very few companies provide halal investments, but they are very rare. NHS may provide a halal funds, but not sure. If this can't be avoided then the return you must get from pension, in x years must equate exactly what you put into it, i.e. money deducted from your salary and contribution made by employer. The access would be considered a form of interest as this has been invested in haraam business.


Unfortunately this is the problem with pension funds, I have overcome this by investing in the markets myself..

[sunilight]

I am assuming that the pension fund you are opting for, means funds are deucted from your salary and also your employer will make the same contribution. There is nothing wrong with this kind of pension, as when you receive back the pension benefits, it is merely your own money - if you see what I mean. As for the contribution from employer this is considered a gift (hiba), so perfectly OK...

yeh thats the one!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Illuminate]

I just remembered HSBC offer Islamic Pension Fund....so you can always see if your employer will go through them..

[ah1999]

Random question... are we allowed to save up for pension (from an Islamic point of view)?

I work in the NHS and opted out of the pension scheme when I joined but now that I've reached the grand old age of 25 I'm wondering whether I should join the pension scheme....

Is anyone here as old as me? Who else is saving?

The concept of pension schemes in general is permissible in Shariah, it is effectively a form of investment scheme. The problem that arises is where is one’s money being invested, more often than not pension fund managers invest part of the money in unlawful businesses/companies/schemes from a Shariah aspect.
The second problem which arises is that quite often pensions schemes are tied up to life insurance policies which in themselves need to be considered from a Shariah point of view.

It is important that each one of us thinks about the nature of our earnings/ profits form investments and otherwise.

Halal investments:
1. There are numerous investment funds on a world wide basis which invest according to Shariah, these funds are supervised by a Shariah advisory board of Islamic scholars. However, many of the general funds invest a large perecent in US stocks and many have an erratic performance record. On top of that their initial fees (and subsequent fees in some cases) are quite high.
2. The same scholars on appear on the various these Shariah advisory boards again and again.
3. There are very few banks which are wholly Shariah complaint. Some banks declare Shariah compliant activities and non-Shariah compliant business.
4. If one is knowledgable one can read the ruling of different scholars on various issue to get to know the scholars. Some of the ruling I have read from some scholars my heart did not feel comfortable.
5. There are investment schemes which are wholly Shariah compliant but these usually require relatively large sums to be invested over long term. One can even invest in hotels being built in Makkah nowadays (you can buy time share in the big building being built opposite King AbdulAziz gate in Haram Shareef)

Investing in stocks and shares:
Choosing one’s own “halal” company to invest in. I think it is better not to use the term halal as it has specific legal meaning, but better to say permissible/ acceptable.
Investing in derivatives/ futures, CFD’s etc. is not permissible. Also in Shariah you cannot sell what you do not legally own.
Step 1
Exclude all companies involved in non-permissible activities sush as alcohol, gambling, pork-related products, casinos, night-clubs, illict film industries, tobacco, banking, (insurance, weapons, etc. etc.)
Step 2
Look at the financial structure of the company to make sure it is not in too much debt hence paying riba (interest) and neither does it have a lot of money in deposit accounts earning riba (interest0; i.e. you need to look at the debt/equity ratio and decide what level is permissible.
Step 3
Do you want to invest in a company involved in trade in Israel, US etc. etc.
Step 4
After you get your dividend (company profit) you have to decide to a process of “purification”. What of your profits were attained by non-permissible means e.g. a company have have kept some money in the bank and earned interest which is passed on to its shareholders.

Like brother Rahim I am in favour of looking after my own finances and investing independently. However, choosing your own “halal” company to invest in is not so easy. It requires a considerable amount of time and knowledge of the stockmarkets.
However, it seems that this is a good time to invest in stocks as stocks are expected to rise.

Wassalaam, A.H.

[ah1999]

It would be interesting to know if Muslims would invest in the following companies:
1. A company involved in developing missile guiding systems whose main customer is the US government.
2. A company which produces glass bottles whose main customer is a brewery which uses the bottles for alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages.
3. A supermarket chain store based in the UK which sells all kinds of foods and drinks.
4. A company which is a national car dealer which is also involved in arranging car financing.
5. A company involved in printing various kinds of magazines and newspapers.

(This is just something to think about/discuss the aim is not to derive at a legal ruling)

[Illuminate]

Brother ah1999

You make some interesting points, finding a shariah compliant investment funds who has a good track record is not easy. Many have not past performance record and many of these islamic funds are owned by the big banks, which some who say, makes them haraam just becaue of this.

Investing in derivatives/ futures, CFD’s etc. is not permissible. Also in Shariah you cannot sell what you do not legally own.

I have look into short selling very deeply but many scholars are unwilling to discuss this when you have large amount of stock of a particular company, and you want to take advantage of market volatility by short selling. Is this something you would say is permissable as you are technically using own stock but not actually selling the stock into the market.

I would say every single company can be technically deemed haraam as every company in the market in the west deals in something which is forbidden. But the ruling I was given is what the main focus of the business is, so something like supermarket, they sell alcohol, haraam food in their stores, but at the same, every muslim person in the UK goes to shop in a supermarket. So I would not consider investing in something like supermarket as haraam.

Also what about company like google, microsoft and Apple, all three companies have businesses and links to Israel, so wonder if we talk about boycotting Israel you would include these three companies and not investing in them..


btw - I think majority of islamic funds investment in the energy sector, property and commodities.

[ah1999]

You make some interesting points, finding a shariah compliant investment funds who has a good track record is not easy.

Agreed


many of these islamic funds are owned by the big banks, which some who say, makes them haraam just becaue of this.

The overwhelmingly scholarly opinion is contrary to this.


I have look into short selling very deeply but many scholars are unwilling to discuss this when you have large amount of stock of a particular company, and you want to take advantage of market volatility by short selling. Is this something you would say is permissable as you are technically using own stock but not actually selling the stock into the market.

Like the fine line dividing trade and riba (as referred to in Quran) there is also a fine line dividing trading in shares and gambling.
And of course as you know there is a difference between fatawa and taqwa.


I would say every single company can be technically deemed haraam as every company in the market in the west deals in something which is forbidden.
See http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=66981#post66981 post #129, point no.7

But the ruling I was given is what the main focus of the business is, so something like supermarket, they sell alcohol, haraam food in their stores, but at the same, every muslim person in the UK goes to shop in a supermarket. So I would not consider investing in something like supermarket as haraam.

That is the rajhi call.


Also what about company like google, microsoft and Apple, all three companies have businesses and links to Israel, so wonder if we talk about boycotting Israel you would include these three companies and not investing in them..

As I said earlier this is just something to think about/discuss the aim is not to derive at a legal ruling. We already know the majority opinion of the scholars on this issue.
In the current world situation there are certain dilemmas one faces between what is right and what is legal as opposed to what is legal and what is right. :confused:

[ronnymeah]

Salaam Alikum

My advice is simply save regularly and spend wisely. :)

[sunilight]

Salaam Alikum

My advice is simply save regularly and spend wisely. :)

great advice
:)

[Illuminate]

As I said earlier this is just something to think about/discuss the aim is not to derive at a legal ruling. We already know the majority opinion of the scholars on this issue.
In the current world situation there are certain dilemmas one faces between what is right and what is legal as opposed to what is legal and what is right. :confused:
JZK - for the information.. :)

[br ash]

I am assuming that the pension fund you are opting for, means funds are deucted from your salary and also your employer will make the same contribution. There is nothing wrong with this kind of pension, as when you receive back the pension benefits, it is merely your own money - if you see what I mean. As for the contribution from employer this is considered a gift (hiba), so perfectly OK..

What is important that this is not insurance premiums whose return is based on external factors or events and is a form of gambling and interest is involve.

However, the only probelm is that the money should not be invested in haraam businesses, like alcohol, banks and so on. Very few companies provide halal investments, but they are very rare. NHS may provide a halal funds, but not sure. If this can't be avoided then the return you must get from pension, in x years must equate exactly what you put into it, i.e. money deducted from your salary and contribution made by employer. The access would be considered a form of interest as this has been invested in haraam business.


Unfortunately this is the problem with pension funds, I have overcome this by investing in the markets myself..

The monies in NHS pension scheme is not invested, the money you contribute to the scheme is paid out to all the current retired members.

You should me a member as your employer also contributes. It is protected against inflation, meaning that when you retire inflation goes up by 10% your benefits will also go up by 10%.

Last but not least new rules are coming in for new members, very soon, you want the old rules, you can retire at 60, not 65 which is being introduced for new members.

Salaam

Ash

[Bach2005]

salaam

excellent topic guys and very informative.

Jzk

w/s

[ah1999]

The monies in NHS pension scheme is not invested, the money you contribute to the scheme is paid out to all the current retired members.

You should me a member as your employer also contributes. It is protected against inflation, meaning that when you retire inflation goes up by 10% your benefits will also go up by 10%.

Last but not least new rules are coming in for new members, very soon, you want the old rules, you can retire at 60, not 65 which is being introduced for new members.

Salaam

Ash


Brother Ash you seem to know quite a lot about NHS pensions etc. (you may be in this line of work). I would like you to share your knowledge if you could as I am interested in learning more about this subject.
As you said public sector workers (NHS, MP’s, teachers) do seem to have inflation proof pensions. This is too good a deal which will probably in the near future cause problems.
NHS pension scheme (public sector pension schemes in general) is rather complicated.
Is it not true to say that the public sector pensioners pension is actually funded by the tax-payer and council-tax payer? Pensioners themselves pay council tax but only the public sector pensioners get the benefit. It seems everyone has to contribute to pensions of the public sector pensioners. So something needs to be done!
What are the opinions?
1. Increase income taxes
2. Increase council taxes
3. Government borrows money to pay pensions
4. Increase retirement age

What is the best thing for one to do?

[Yahya]

Is it not true to say that the public sector pensioners pension is actually funded by the tax-payer and council-tax payer?

No. Public sector pesions come out of a ring fenced fund. Worker and employers pay into it and now, thanks to privatisation, some of those workers and employers are outside the public sector. The people who manage the pension have even considered making it generally availble as a means of ensuring continued payments.

The taxpayer subsidises only in as much as public sector wages (which it should be noted are generally lower than their private sector counterparts) are derived ultimately from taxes. The employer, ie the state, is seeking to change the conditions of this pension for the same reason private employers are - they fear a shortfall.

Pensioners themselves pay council tax but only the public sector pensioners get the benefit

This again somewhat misleading. The bulk of Council funding comes in the form of a grant from central government (about 80% I think). This helps to equalise between the needs of high-cost low revenue councils (like Southwark) and low-cost high-revenue ones (like Westminster). Currently central government is reducing this payment be 10% per annum, this is the reason for the rise in Council Tax bills. Pensions are not paid from Council Tax, but from a central fund.

PS I am a local government worker.

[br ash]

Brother Ash you seem to know quite a lot about NHS pensions etc. (you may be in this line of work). I would like you to share your knowledge if you could as I am interested in learning more about this subject.
As you said public sector workers (NHS, MP’s, teachers) do seem to have inflation proof pensions. This is too good a deal which will probably in the near future cause problems.
NHS pension scheme (public sector pension schemes in general) is rather complicated.
Is it not true to say that the public sector pensioners pension is actually funded by the tax-payer and council-tax payer? Pensioners themselves pay council tax but only the public sector pensioners get the benefit. It seems everyone has to contribute to pensions of the public sector pensioners. So something needs to be done!
What are the opinions?
1. Increase income taxes
2. Increase council taxes
3. Government borrows money to pay pensions
4. Increase retirement age

What is the best thing for one to do?

This a complicated area, its getting from bad to worse. Every one contributes to the public sector pension arrangements. You are right in using the words that public sector pension is funded by the tax payers, to be precise partially, public sector employees do contribute percentage of their salary towards there pension arrangement.

The long term solution is to increase the retirement age, for future members. the public sector scheme are based on final salary, which is also a problem, in the early years you are earn less therefore contributing less, say if you income goes up significantly in the last 10 years of employment, good for the member, poor value for the tax payer.

Currently public sector members pose a serious problem, this will be can only be funded via tax hikes. The government in power in the next 5-10 years will have to make radical changes in this arena, people are living longer and longer, we have a major problem. Put it this way there are in the region 1.2Million worker in the NHS alone, forget about the police, Armed forces, etc etc etc.

To me the easy and best solution would be private sector pension, no additional responsibility for the government, this would not apply to members of the armed forces/ police. Every one else treated the same particularly MPs:D

The only problem with the above proposal is UK will face its worst strikes and will cripple any government. What I see is that no government is willing to take the necessary action to solve the problem that we are facing in the UK.

Ageing population is going to cripple our economy in many ways, if we do not take the necessary action.



Salaam


Ash

[Yahya]

To me the easy and best solution would be private sector pension, no additional responsibility for the government, this would not apply to members of the armed forces/ police. Every one else treated the same particularly MPs the same

Why except the police and armed forces, are their jobs so much more relevant than the teacher or nurse, or even the housing and social worker?

Again public sector wages are lower than their private sector counterparts. Recruitment is already a nightmare. The people apply for admin posts in Southwark, for example are barely literate. This has to be taken with the fact that these job are actually dangerous. They are therefor harder for older people to do. On police recomendation housing workers in Southwark are being issued with stab vests. But according to you, the policeman should receive a generous pension on top of his generous salary andthe person standing next to him when a drug dealer is being evicted shouldn't.

Cutting public sector pensions is in effect a wage cut. This will result in strike action and an upward pressure on wages, with the consequences that costs will not diminish. This is very realistic since public sector workers have been putting up with below-inflation pay rises for two decades on the basis of the argument that they will receive a better pension than most. It is also important to remember that public sector workers are overwhelmingly low-paid, not doctors and nurses but dustmen and cleaners.

Your attitude to the "necessary" action seems to revolve around punishing the weak (with the standard sidewipe at lazy civil servants of course), perhaps doing the "necessary" should mean the introduction of local income taxes to raise revenue by targetting those who can actually pay, including better paid public sector workers. Obliging people to pay NI on earnings above 40 k would also help and distribute the tax burden more fairly.

But your right, politicians are too gutless to make those kinds of tough choices - much easier to kick a few cleaners around. :D

But if you are worried about MPs perks, how about putting them on the average income of their constituants. No worries for all you aspiring Tory members but no more New Labour clones parachuting into inner-city constituencies. And they will have to start worrying about is getting poorer rather than them getting richer.

[ah1999]

Thank you very brother Yahya and brother Ash. This is very interesting. I am learning something here. (Yahya, Ithought you were a teacher!..anyhow let that be).
It seems as far as pensions go we can expect problems, or at least some changes, in the future with an ageing population.
Br Yahya there is a difference between public and private sector salaries but is the gap not narrowing?

“The monies in NHS pension scheme is not invested, the money you contribute to the scheme is paid out to all the current retired members.” (Br Ash)
“Public sector pesions come out of a ring fenced fund.” (Br Yahya)

This is an interesting point. From an Islamic point of view it is necessary to determine the exact nature of a contract to establish whether it is permissible within Sharia or not.
So in a state pension scheme:
Q1. Who are the participants in this contract?
It has to be the individual who is making contributions to the pension scheme and the state.
Q2. What is the nature of the contract?
You pay regular contributions now and you will receive money after you retire according to a formula based on your final salary.

Which means the money has to be kept somewhere (i.e. invested) to pay you when you retire.
Is this how you guys understand this?

[br ash]

Why except the police and armed forces, are their jobs so much more relevant than the teacher or nurse, or even the housing and social worker?

Again public sector wages are lower than their private sector counterparts. Recruitment is already a nightmare. The people apply for admin posts in Southwark, for example are barely literate. This has to be taken with the fact that these job are actually dangerous. They are therefor harder for older people to do. On police recomendation housing workers in Southwark are being issued with stab vests. But according to you, the policeman should receive a generous pension on top of his generous salary andthe person standing next to him when a drud dealer is being evicted shouldn't.

Cutting public sector pensions is in effect a wage cut. This will result in strike action and an upward pressure on wages, with the consequences that costs will not diminish. This is very realistic since public sector workers have been putting up with below-inflation pay rises for two decades on the basis of the argument that they will receive a better pension than most. It is also important to remember that public sector workers are overwhelmingly low-paid, not doctors and nurses but dustmen and cleaners.

You said Cutting public sector pensions is in effect a wage cut. This will result in strike action and an upward pressure on wages, with the consequences that costs will not diminish. This is very realistic since public sector workers have been putting up with below-inflation pay rises for two decades on the basis of the argument that they will receive a better pension than most. It is also important to remember that public sector workers are overwhelmingly low-paid, not doctors and nurses but dustmen and cleane

First of all i have not recommended cutting public sector pension, what i have recommended is, every one has to have a private pension, you contribute into it, your employer contributes into it, where is the cut?

If public sector pensions are to be funded then the Public sector will have to work till into the 70s. The reason for this is simple, when pensions were introduced in the early 1900s on average there were 22 people of working age in the UK for every retired person. In 2024 there will be less than three. You can not expect those poor three, particularly if they happen to be in the private sector to fund a public sector retiree.:D



Salaam

Ash

[Illuminate]

Br ash - I know what you are saying, but there is another element which has not been mention, that there is a pensions crisis, which will effect many private sector workers and are facing pensions deficits, whilst the public sector, they are cushioned by the government i.e. taxpayers.

There are many companies in the FTSE 100 who have a staggering deficeit, which may mean private workers when they retire, will not get what they are expecting and may need to work longer than they were planning..

[br ash]

Br ash - I know what you are saying, but there is another element which has not been mention, that there is a pensions crisis, which will effect many private sector workers and are facing pensions deficits, whilst the public sector, they are cushioned by the government i.e. taxpayers.

There are many companies in the FTSE 100 who have a staggering deficeit, which may mean private workers when they retire, will not get what they are expecting and may need to work longer than they were planning..


Spot on, no question about it.

The question that was posed by br AH1999, was geared towards the public sector. So I responded accordingly

Where the private sector is facing a problem is on defined benefit pension arrangements, there equivalent of the public sector pension schemes. The private sector will have to do the same as the public sector set up their Pension schemes as Money Purchase arrangements.

Salaam

Ash

[Yahya]

Which means the money has to be kept somewhere (i.e. invested) to pay you when you retire.
Is this how you guys understand this?

I've done a bit of research and discovered the fund operates identically to any othe pension scheme. It is managed by a board of trustees comprised of unions, employers and independent administrators and invests pension funds in much the same way as other schemes.

It is public only because the workers in it are government employees, in every other respect it is a private pension scheme.

So;

First of all i have not recommended cutting public sector pension, what i have recommended is, every one has to have a private pension, you contribute into it, your employer contributes into it, where is the cut?

If the scheme is already effectively identicle to a private pension scheme, the idea of replacing it with personal private pensions is a cut. Currently the scheme, like its rapidly disappearing private sector counterparts, is based on the joint contributions of employers and employees. Obliging workers to pay the entire cost themselves either cuts the final pension or increases its cost. It undermines the huge economies of scale which operate in the unified state sectoe scheme, increasing cost, and forces workers to give up on a secure future in oder to rely on an industry which has already prooved itself extremely unreliable. But I can see how Tory logic sees this as fair on workers. :rolleyes:

This is the forth richest country on Earth. Rather than public and private sector workers competing in a race to lose their pensions should we try to ensure that all old people can live a comfortable life at retirement. Isn't that better than record salaries to executives and profits for City spivs.

[Salaam]

Geez.. I feel out of my depth now.

[ah1999]

I've done a bit of research and discovered the fund operates identically to any othe pension scheme.

Thank you very much brother Yahya for taking the time and effort to look into this subject. Much appreciated.

[Yahya]

Thank you very much brother Yahya for taking the time and effort to look into this subject. Much appreciated.

Not much effort. I just ask someone who understands it better than me. :o

I suppose "bit of research" was overstating it.

[br ash]

I've done a bit of research and discovered the fund operates identically to any othe pension scheme. It is managed by a board of trustees comprised of unions, employers and independent administrators and invests pension funds in much the same way as other schemes.

It is public only because the workers in it are government employees, in every other respect it is a private pension scheme.

So;



If the scheme is already effectively identicle to a private pension scheme, the idea of replacing it with personal private pensions is a cut. Currently the scheme, like its rapidly disappearing private sector counterparts, is based on the joint contributions of employers and employees. Obliging workers to pay the entire cost themselves either cuts the final pension or increases its cost. It undermines the huge economies of scale which operate in the unified state sectoe scheme, increasing cost, and forces workers to give up on a secure future in oder to rely on an industry which has already prooved itself extremely unreliable. But I can see how Tory logic sees this as fair on workers.

This is the forth richest country on Earth. Rather than public and private sector workers competing in a race to lose their pensions should we try to ensure that all old people can live a comfortable life at retirement. Isn't that better than record salaries to executives and profits for City spivs.


I've done a bit of research (the mother of all research LOL)and discovered the fund operates identically to any othe pension scheme. It is managed by a board of trustees comprised of unions, employers and independent administrators and invests pension funds in much the same way as other schemes.

It is public only because the workers in it are government employees, in every other respect it is a private pension scheme.

Yayah I do not know where you are coming from, if you care to read carefully my response to the question posed is accurate and correct


If you care to read the question posed (which you cant, piety) I have responded accordingly. You will discover that I have responded correctly, I you can not read or comprehend that is not my problem.


The NHS scheme is not invested, that is fact. The truth the whole and nothing but the truth. If you implying that it is invested then you indeed do not know what you are talking about. :D The same rules apply to the police and the teachers.


When I am responded to brother AH1999 I responded accordingly, if you can not read or comprehend that is not my problem, it is yours. HOPE YOU HAVE GOT THE MESSAGE.




You said If the scheme is already effectively identicle to a private pension scheme, the idea of replacing it with personal private pensions is a cut. Currently the scheme, like its rapidly disappearing private sector counterparts, is based on the joint contributions of employers and employees. Obliging workers to pay the entire cost themselves either cuts the final pension or increases its cost. It undermines the huge economies of scale which operate in the unified state sectoe scheme, increasing cost, and forces workers to give up on a secure future in oder to rely on an industry which has already prooved itself extremely unreliable. But I can see how Tory logic sees this as fair on workers

This is the forth richest country on Earth. Rather than public and private sector workers competing in a race to lose their pensions should we try to ensure that all old people can live a comfortable life at retirement. Isn't that better than record salaries to executives and profits for City spivs.




Again you can not read what I have stated, i have implied the removal of the government guarantee, meaning that XYZ gets a pension, based on final salary. No where have I implied that the employer that is the NHS, Police, etc not contributing what they are doing at the present. The biggest problem facing these schemes is very simply that govement Guarantee, which getting larger and larger day by day, this can only be resolved by heavily taxing the rest of the working population, which is basically nothing other than day light robbery.


Now coming to your, lovey dovey Local Authority:D, yes it is invested, which makes it similar to the private sector defined pension schemes. The only criminality in this arrangement is that, should there be a shortfall, this can only be made up by increasing every ones council tax bill, which again is nothing other than an act of theft. You may see this act of criminality being justifiable I cant.


You have to live in the real world, the term fourth richest nation in the world has no meaning whats so ever, it is term that comes out of Socilist Comic books :D to imply the that we are mega rich. We may be the fourth richest country in the world, we also have the costs to go with it.


There is a similar term that comes out of Neo Con Comic books, the Saudis are Oil rich, meaning that they have an abundant amount of money and they are robbing the west by increasing the prices of oil, if any dim wit Neo Con had one ounce of intelligence, the average income in Saudi Arabia is in the region of $5000pa at most, even beggars in the UK have more than that (State Benefits:D) Terms meaning nothing if used in the wrong context.

Please use terms in there right context, only comic book readers use them incorrectly, hope you are not one of them.

Salaam


Ash

[Yahya]

Now coming to your, lovey dovey Local Authority:D, yes it is invested, which makes it similar to the private sector defined pension schemes. The only criminality in this arrangement is that, should there be a shortfall, this can only be made up by increasing every ones council tax bill, which again is nothing other than an act of theft. You may see this act of criminality being justifiable I cant.


You have to live in the real world, the term fourth richest nation in the world has no meaning whats so ever, it is term that comes out of Socilist Comic books :D to imply the that we are mega rich. We may be the fourth richest country in the world, we also have the costs to go with it.


There is a similar term that comes out of Neo Con Comic books, the Saudis are Oil rich, meaning that they have an abundant amount of money and they are robbing the west by increasing the prices of oil, if any dim wit Neo Con had one ounce of intelligence, the average income in Saudi Arabia is in the region of $5000pa at most, even beggars in the UK have more than that (State Benefits:D) Terms meaning nothing if used in the wrong context.

Please use terms in there right context, only comic book readers use them incorrectly, hope you are not one of them.

Salaam


Ash

I'll defer to your superior knowledge on the subject of the NHS pension.

Local Government Pension Scheme
The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) covers staff directly employed in local government, staff in police, large numbers of people working in higher education and further education, the Environment Agency and the community and voluntary sectors, as well as a growing number of staff working in outsourced public services.

The LGPS is a nationally-funded, statutory, final-salary scheme. This means the contributions paid into the scheme are invested into funds which are then used to pay people's pensions when they retire. It provides a good package of benefits. After 40 years of service, a member would receive a pension equal to half of their pay received during their last 12 months of work, plus an additional tax-free lump sum of one and a half times their pensionable pay.

For more details of the Local Government Pension Scheme, members should consult their employers' pension guide. Further information can also be obtained from the national LGPS website



http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/localgovmore.asp

But I would suggest that you too may have some trouble reading other people's posts.

I answered both the question of how to fairly increase Council Tax and what is the real source of the bulk of Local Authority revenues. I also suggested a means of raising revenue that would be exclusively targetted to social services and which would also target those who can actually afford it.

I asked why exactly the police, who are extremly generously paid should also be guaranteed a final salary pension?

Have you answered? Perhaps the Tories need to start printing comic books for their members, so that they actually have something more to say than "my money - mine mine mine". :D They could include pictures of David Cameron in all sorts of compassionate poses.

I also suggested that the Government should step in to rescue workers diddled by private sector bosses out of their hard-earned pensions. For someone who likes bashing the public sector it strange you have nothing to say to them - beyond "tough luck". Maybe the comic book should be called the amazing two-faced Mister Cameron.

Pensions are part of the work contract, if the employer backs out on them he is the thief, particularly if he's been generous in feathering his own nest.

Now as I recall when the British welfare state was established, the country was bankrupt, extensively bombed, and had just lost the bulk of its empire. Yet it was entirely affordable, indeed pensions were linked to earnings. But I'm no business man. I'm not used to cooking the books to make high incomes look like low ones.

However as I recall, the problem in Saudi has been exactly what percentage of that GNP finds its way in to the pockets of the Al Saud.. which is also the essense of neo-con propaganda. The question in the UK is also one of distribution.

The tax regime in the UK is generous to those on upper middle incomes and higher, even in comparison to the USA, when the various state and local taxes are taken into account. Yet a relatively small section of the population earns more than the average wage. A restoration of the levels of taxation we had in 1979 would still leave us in the middle of the European tax league table, but what would it do for state revenues? The problem isn't demographic, it is a lack of political will on behalf of Brown. Instead of biting the bullet and increasing income tax, we get "stealth taxes" which those on middle to low incomes. Then to weasel out of it politicans of all hews play the greedy government workers card.

[br ash]

I'll defer to your superior knowledge on the subject of the NHS pension.


.


First of all you got it wrong; the initial discussion was on the NHS pension scheme, which is not an invested scheme. Therefore the response you have posted was incorrect, and even the person whom you sought help from also did not know what he was talking about.

Secondly Ah1999 brought out the issue, regarding NHS, Police and Teachers, all these schemes are not invested, i responded according, you responded by implying that these were were invested schemes which is incorrect. You and you your mate do not know what you are talking about . Mother of all Research: :D

As usual come out with you come up with silly rhetoric when you say :

Pensions are part of the work contract, if the employer backs out on them he is the thief, particularly if he's been generous in feathering his own nest

Any employer backs out, he is in breach of contract.(what are you whining on about LOL@U)What he can do is for all his new employees is offer the new pension arrangements. Also he can inform existing members of the defined pension scheme they will have to pay more if they want to retain there benefits, as it will be shear stupidity for an employer to have pension schemes that he can not maintain or provide benefits because of the fall in the Stock Market. This also applies to Local Authority. I have proven so far you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to Pensions, it is a very complicated arena, and your mother of all research proves it:D.


I also suggested that the Government should step in to rescue workers diddled by private sector bosses out of their hard-earned pensions. For someone who likes bashing the public sector it strange you have nothing to say to them - beyond "tough luck". Maybe the comic book should be called the amazing two-faced Mister Cameron.

First off again you do not know what you are talking about, if boss diddled his employers would face a prison term. As you mentioned there are trustee, if you do not know, they responsible for protecting the assets, and not the bosses. LOL@YOU Also there are protection mechanism that prevent any didling, the last didling that happened was by one of your Socialist Comic book Producer Maxwell:D

The above has nothing to do with the issues of the NHS, POLICE and TEACHERS PENSION SCHEME. Despite deflecting off the subject you still do not know what you are talking about.



Have you answered? Perhaps the Tories need to start printing comic books for their members, so that they actually have something more to say than "my money - mine mine mine". :D They could include pictures of David Cameron in all sorts of compassionate poses.

People who save for there future, its there money and not the states. That implies to any to one, not just the privileged Socialist Comic book mentality population.



I do not know what you are prattling on about when you say But I'm no business man. I'm not used to cooking the books to make high incomes look like low ones i look forward to your explanation.


You said Now as I recall when the British welfare state was established, the country was bankrupt, extensively bombed, and had just lost the bulk of its empire. Yet it was entirely affordable, indeed pensions were linked to earnings. But I'm no business man. I'm not used to cooking the books to make high incomes look like low ones.

Let me repeat the reason for this is simple, when pensions were first introduced in the early 1900s then on average there were 22 people of working age in the UK for every retired person. In 2024 there will be less than three.

There are not going to be enough people working to support the retired. Back in 1900 the percentage of the population that was above age of 60 was small in comparison today, secondly they died on average between 65-70, No problem, now they are living between 80-85. Problem

There are not enough people to support the very people who will be receiving benefits when they are retired, no matter which type of pension arrangement you are looking at, but then again as you spend too much time reading socialist comic books, you would not know. GET A LIFE, and stop wasting my time.


you said A restoration of the levels of taxation we had in 1979 would still leave us in the middle of the European tax league table, but what would it do for state revenues? LOL@Um because you do not know what you are talking about.

first of all, again to show that you do not know what you are talking about, we had a massive brain drain, people were leaving to work in the USA etc. British Business transferred to the USA, why simply because the taxation was such that you could paying higher rate ay 90% tax in some cases 110, depending if on the amount of investment you held. That lunatic Labour policy made UK the sick man of Europe. Reintroduce those kinds of policies you will then see FDI and other forms of investment coming in from the USA and Europe dwindle in there £100s of Billions per Annum. This will have a serious impact on our economy.

It just proves that when it comes to economics you do not know what you are talking about.

You know nothing about Pensions and you follow the lunatic left policies when it comes to economics, which is nothing other than what comes out of Socialist Comic books. LOL@U

Salaam


Ash.

[Shazan]

I didn’t want to start another thread on what may appear to be a simple matter, since the topic is on finances, is there any issue which will make claiming compensation from an employer, haraam?

The compensation is for an accident, and the employer has accepted liability

[Illuminate]

I didn’t want to start another thread on what may appear to be a simple matter, since the topic is on finances, is there any issue which will make claiming compensation from an employer, haraam?

The compensation is for an accident, and the employer has accepted liability

I can think of few reasons, which could make it haram,

1) Accident that occurs due to reasons that are unavoidable and not due to the direct action of your employer - i.e. an act of god e.g. natural disaster

2) if the accident was strongly influenced and the causation of the end result was due to the person who was harmed his/her negligence

3) If the accident was caused by a third person, then in this case the third person is liable

but you will need to get further clarification from a person of knowledge if they apply to you. Basically it has to be your employers fault, directly...




This is the forth richest country on Earth. Rather than public and private sector workers competing in a race to lose their pensions should we try to ensure that all old people can live a comfortable life at retirement. Isn't that better than record salaries to executives and profits for City spivs.

This is the forth richest country on Earth.

Britain is no longer the fourth richest country (in terms of absolute GDP) on earth now.
China has overtaken us, just read about it earlier today...

[ah1999]

I didn’t want to start another thread on what may appear to be a simple matter, since the topic is on finances, is there any issue which will make claiming compensation from an employer, haraam?

The compensation is for an accident, and the employer has accepted liability

Assalamu alaikum brother Shazan,
First of all, I am not in a position to make a legal ruling. But here are some general principles which I know.
As I have said before in Islam we can divide actions into religious actions (ibadah) and ordinary/social/ everyday actions (muamalat). All acts of ibadah are haram unless sanctioned by Shariah, while all muamalat acts are permissible unless there is evidence in Shariah to the contrary.

1. You issue comes under muamalat. So it is permissible unless we find legal text/ principle which deems it non-permissible.
2. Reconciliataion is accepted in Islamic law (evidence Quran 4:128, and sahih hadith narrated by Abu Daud and Tirmidhi).
3. Reconciliation is invalid if one of the two reconcilers is lying. The object of reconciliation in itself must be permissible. If the one who confesses an obligation but places a condition over it then this is not permissible.
4. Reconciliation is a from of contarct in Islamic law, therefore genral principles of contract apply.
5. Diya (blood money) for death or injury to person by non-intentional means is permissible.

If you need more info. contact me with specific details and I will seek advice on your behalf from someone specialised in Islamic law.
If you find the info. useful pray fro me.

Wassalaam, A.H. (ah1999@hotmail.co.uk)

PS This should be in a new thread entitled Reconciliation/ Compensation