3 ms·
> He has been paying into a scheme for many decades, even though there was no requirement for him to do so. Yes, that's true, and to his credit. However, the p
by microtherion 7y ago
> He has been paying into a scheme for many decades, even though there was no requirement for him to do so.
Yes, that's true, and to his credit. However, the people whom he hired during that time negotiated their salary and chose their place of employment knowing about the pension scheme, so the whole thing is not quite the act of pure, disinterested benevolence the article makes it out to be.
- zentiggr 7y agoThe hinge point of the story isn't the setting up, administering, payments regarding, or any of the normal expected activity involved. It is entirely about the arbitrary boundary change in 2005 that created legal debt out of thin air. And incidentally about the soggy rotten mess that British politics seems to be at the moment, blocking any reasonable effort to adjust the law to a more reasonable funding requirement. Benevolence or 'selling feature' is irrelevant to the legal blundering.
- gitgudnubs 7y agoHis employees negotiated their pay decades before the law changed.
- throwmeaway90 7y agoare you suggesting company should never pay pension and instead pay their employee directly?