【24h】

Out of pocket

机译:从口袋里掏出

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

When Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, raised employer national-insurance contributions by £4 billion ($7 billion) a year in his 2002 budget, British business cried foul. But on October 31st, David Norgrove, chairman of the Pensions Regulator, set out proposals that will involve a cash call double that amount to get rid of company pension-fund shortfalls over the next ten years, and there was no great fuss. Instead, the stockmarket was galvanised by a takeover spree by foreign bidders for some big British firms. A sanguine interpretation of this week's events is that prescient markets had already taken on board the scale of action needed to address pension-fund deficits. More likely, however, they have not woken up to the full impact of the regulator's proposals. That would be par for the course. There is a long, worrying history of government meddling in company pensions whose full impact is only appreciated years after the event.
机译:当财政大臣戈登·布朗(Gordon Brown)在他的2002年预算中将雇主的国家保险缴款每年增加40亿英镑(70亿美元)时,英国企业大呼犯规。但是在10月31日,养老金监管机构主席戴维·诺格罗夫(David Norgrove)提出了一些建议,其中涉及将现金赎回额翻倍,以消除未来十年公司养老金的短缺,而且没有大惊小怪。相反,外国竞标者对一些英国大公司的收购狂潮刺激了股市。对本周事件的乐观解释是,有先见之明的市场已经采取了解决养老基金赤字所需的行动规模。但是,它们更有可能没有完全意识到监管机构提案的全部影响。那将是当然的过程。政府干预公司养老金的历史由来已久,令人担忧,其影响只有在事件发生数年后才能得到体现。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号