A million to march on Westminster!

[ahinton]

Maybe I'm missing something in which case my apologies. However, your lengthy response began "Or one could discuss the abolition of pensions altogether" and then continued with that theme. What I am suggesting is that you could be right to portray the current discussions as missing the fundamental point about there being no guarantees. However, in the real world of political negotiation and competition, those discussions will take place.

Of course, what you describe isn't new and in fairness you haven't suggested that it is so. We could therefore have accepted the view that there are no guarantees from the word go and not had any pensions at all. What concerns me slightly is that it isn't clear to me whether you feel that this would have been better for representing reality more accurately. While I dislike the politics and economics of fantasy as much as anyone else, pensions were delivered and crucially the fantasy of them being guaranteed made peoples' lives easier. Arguably it led to far greater productivity for reducing levels of anxiety.

I have one further thought. It is not one I propose, certainly not currently, but it could be used when it seems all is lost. If the Government really will not honour its commitments and goes ahead with its proposals willy-nilly, I would like to see the unions requesting that all of the savings are put directly into the pensions of low paid private sector staff. Not everyone. Just those who saved for decades and were punished by Gordon Brown's policies. It would put Cameron and Maude on the spot and show just how devoted they are to pensions for all the less well off in principle including those in the private sector. Make life difficult for them.

Your last point is certainly a good one, though too good to become true, of course, since the government is sadly likely to do no such thing any more than it's likely to listen more carefully to the unions after yesterday's alleged "damp squib" that wasn't.

The fundameantal problem here is threefold - and appropriately so since there are three types of "pension" involved in the broader discussion here - two real ones (those for private sector employees and those for public sector ones) and the state charade. The first has been irreparably damaged under the Brown régime and that damaging activity continues today under what nevertheless purports to be a quite different régime, the second is now under siege because (allegedly) the government of the day is mismanaging and misappropriating some of the contributions and the third isn't a "pension" at all, as we have seen, since there are no retained funds even to overtax or mismanage and misappropriate.

Much criticism has been levelled at public sector pension protesters by private sector employees - and not without some good reason - on the grounds that public sector pensions already represent a far better deal than do most private sector ones; what tends to be overlooked in such arguments, however, is that this differential - the veracity of which I do not doubt - would be far less, or might not even exist at all, today had it not been for the damage done to private sector pensions since Brown took office as the last Chancer of the Exchequer but two.

What to do? Well, for starters, as I've mentioned before, pensions as a means of saving for possible retirement - or at least for people's years followng state retirement age - must be allowed to remain sacrosanct and not be bludgeoned by governments in the way that private and public sector workers' pensions have variously been in recent years but, that said, it is equally well worth remembering that pensions are only one way in which to save for retirement - there are others. Another thing to do is agree to get accustomed to the fact that it might be prudent and practical not to expect governments to behave as though capable of acting as pension advisors, planners, managers, trustees et al; is this in any case really the business of government when there are so many other calls upon its time and responsibility? The next thing to do is to get governments to ensure that they do not interfere unduly in the pensions market - such as in the ways described above - beyond ensuring that adequate regulation is in place to deal with any criminal / fraudulent misappropriations and mismanagement of pension funds. Governments then need to come clean about how they fund state "pensions" so that it is generally understood that they're not "pensions" at all but benefits like any other state benefits that are paid for out of taxpayers' funds (currently topped up by government borrowings) rather than out of a pension pot built up over years through prudent investment of contributors' contributions as is the case with real pensions.

The principal remaining problem, however, is that, with the economic situation being so parlous and unemployment being as high as it is, many people simply won't have the means available to them to use any form of savings vehicle with a view to funding their latter years - and I don't see how this can be avoided unless that economic situation improves. Many people now believe in any case that retirement has already become a luxury available to the privileged and fortunate few, which fact serves only to exacerbate the increasingly widely (if also reluctantly) held view that there's no point in saving for retirement - and everyone knows that no one can survive on state "pension" benefits alone. Of course, if taxpayers weren't coerced into wasting so much of their generously donated money on bailing out banks and continuing wars in countries that have not invaded Britain, the government might not need to borrow so much and their ability to keep their hands off people's pensions might accordingly be somewhat greater, but that's another story (or is it?!)...

[MrGongGong]

. Many people now believe in any case that retirement has already become a luxury available to the privileged and fortunate few, which fact serves only to exacerbate the increasingly widely (if also reluctantly) held view that there's no point in saving for retirement - and everyone knows that no one can survive on state "pension" benefits alone.

"Saving" for "retirement" is more than a little pointless for many of us, to "save" enough to get something meaningful back would mean such a low standard of living that many people simply don't bother.

"no one can survive of state pension benefits" ????? many people DO

the kind of retirement that my parents are enjoying will be an unaffordable luxury for most of us regardless of how hard we work or how much we "save" , some people were lucky to be born at the right time for this ! many people in their 70's (not all ) who worked (in my parents case as a teacher and in Export/ Shipping) through the 1950's,60's,70's and are now retired have luckily managed to retire at a point where the demographics are that there are simply more people working to support their retirement.

It is ridiculous that some people aged 55 are being given early "retirement" so that the rest of us can pay for their life of leisure when others far more needy are denied a basic means of living.

[ahinton]

"Saving" for "retirement" is more than a little pointless for many of us, to "save" enough to get something meaningful back would mean such a low standard of living that many people simply don't bother.

Indeed - that's pretty much what I was saying myself.

"no one can survive of state pension benefits" ????? many people DO

I should have chosen my word more carefully; "survive" is just about all that anyone can do on a state retiremen "pension" alone, as distinct from being able to afford to fund a reasonably comfortable retirement with it; that said, however, even that's not possible for most people whose sole income is that state retirement "pension" if they have mortgages or other loans, unaffordable rents or are helping to fund their children's and/or grandchildren's education...

the kind of retirement that my parents are enjoying will be an unaffordable luxury for most of us regardless of how hard we work or how much we "save" , some people were lucky to be born at the right time for this ! many people in their 70's (not all ) who worked (in my parents case as a teacher and in Export/ Shipping) through the 1950's,60's,70's and are now retired have luckily managed to retire at a point where the demographics are that there are simply more people working to support their retirement.

This is indeed true and much of its truth arises from better economic times where such results were more achievable than is the case today; for one thing, most people didn't have to pay for higher education then, whereas the costs of this alone today are a substantial burden on many and make contributing adequately to pensions much harder if not impossible.

It is ridiculous that some people aged 55 are being given early "retirement" so that the rest of us can pay for their life of leisure when others far more needy are denied a basic means of living.

I'm afraid that I don't understand your logic here, for a number of reasons. Firstly, not everyone aged 50-55 who takes early retirement is "given" it; most elect to take or not to take it. The self-employed who do so all choose it, since the choice is theirs alone and there's no one else to "give" it to them. Not everyone who takes a pension at that age necessarily gives up working in any case; many people of pensionable age these days have incomes from one or more pensions and one or more work sources. What I really don't understand is what you mean when you write "so that the rest of us can pay for their life of leisure"; not only do not all retirees of any age stop work altogether (many take on different work) but also, more importantly, "the rest of us" don't pay for this. When someone retires at whatever age and vests his/her pension, the pension benefit is something that he/she - not "the rest of us" - has paid for; furthermore, many pensions in payment generate tax revenues, thereby producing the opposite effect of "the rest of us" paying for these retirees' lives. The fact that some people are denied a basic means of living, whilst undeniable, is not the fault of people who retire at 50, 55, 65 or indeed any age, because the two factors are unconnected. Have I misunderstood something that you're saying here? If, so, please explain and accept my apology in advance.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is apparent to me that i am not alone in finding the understanding of pensions and their funding challenging ... or the role of tax policies in regard to the different types of arrangement, personal or collective, draw down or annuity, lump sum allowances, tax on fund income prior to vesting, tax on paid income post vesting etc etc ... however it is perfectly clear to me that most of us have been screwed for commission, tax and fund values etc over the last forty years at least ... and clearest of all is the role of G Brown in badly ripping off me and others like me and then there is George O and his fondness for his annuity fund chums and distaste of draw down arrangements ... [inspired by broon done by osborne no doubt] however none of this would stir me in the least to remonstrate by marching in a million strong crowd in lock step on Westminster Bridge

[Lateralthinking1]

One of the things that is so downright depressing here is that the Government can talk dismissively of "they", "them", etc while most who are defending their entitlements speak of "I", "my" etc. Even when it is "we" and "our", that tends to be about what "I" am seeking to lose or have already lost depending on the employment sector.

While it is clear that there are some households and families which will not gain at all by the maintenance of pensions, there is a huge overlap - there are some 6 million public sector workers - and even that doesn't take account of future members of the public sector.

I would like to see the figures actually of who as an individual is not sufficiently close to another that they would or might not benefit in some way from a public sector pension. A lot may through ignorance or envy be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The main impact is likely to be an even larger group of people divided from levels of wealth that stabilise living.

[ahinton]

it is apparent to me that i am not alone in finding the understanding of pensions and their funding challenging ... or the role of tax policies in regard to the different types of arrangement, personal or collective, draw down or annuity, lump sum allowances, tax on fund income prior to vesting, tax on paid income post vesting etc etc ... however it is perfectly clear to me that most of us have been screwed for commission, tax and fund values etc over the last forty years at least ... and clearest of all is the role of G Brown in badly ripping off me and others like me and then there is George O and his fondness for his annuity fund chums and distaste of draw down arrangements ... [inspired by broon done by osborne no doubt] however none of this would stir me in the least to remonstrate by marching in a million strong crowd in lock step on Westminster Bridge

I humbly submit that your very use of terminology here suggests that you find it all rather less challenging than you imagine. Yes, the pensions product market is indeed a complex one and, whilst there have indeed been some unjustifiably inflated payments to pension advisors in the past, the regulator has at least conducted reviews of pension selling in part as a consequence of this. Advisors do need, however, to be paid adequately for giving advice in a minefield such as pensions, given that the rest of us wouldn't expect to understand more than the very basics of it. As far as those basics are concerned, the kinds of pension product types that we're talking about here, be they GPPs (Group Personal Pensions), employers' schemes, individual personal pensions including SIPPs, SSASs and the like, all fit different sets of circumstances and it would be difficult to see how this market place could undergo realistic structural simplification to any significant degree. In all such cases, however, there are tax reliefs on contributions when they're made but there is liability to tax on the pensions once they're vested and are in payment.

The Brown ACT policy damaged large parts of the corporate pension market even more than ailing markets have done. The present government appear now to wreaking not entirely dissiilar havoc on public sector pensions which, at present, are indeed for the most part better deals than private sector ones but only because of that damage done to the latter.

I suspect that the much-vaunted obesity that is widely reported as affecting British people today would mean that if 1m of them could be crammed onto Westminster bridge it would collapse into the Thames faster than any kind of pension could.

[ahinton]

While it is clear that there are some households and families which will not gain at all by the maintenance of pensions, there is a huge overlap - there are some 6 million public sector workers - and even that doesn't take account of future members of the public sector.

I would like to see the figures actually of who as an individual is not sufficiently close to another that they would or might not benefit in some way from a public sector pension. A lot may through ignorance or envy be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The main impact is likely to be an even larger group of people divided from levels of wealth that stabilise living.

I don't understand what you mean by nost of this. You can only opt for a public sector pension if you work in the public sector and, as I've said above, whilst most public sector pensions still represent a rather better deal for the workforce than most private sector pensions, there is an artificial historical reason for this. As to "future members of the public sector", who will these be if three quarters of a million of them are to be put out of work?

As I've also stated previously, it would be a prudent idea for governments to get out of trying to provide some "pensions" and interfering with others, since this is an area of expertise that it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect governmehts to have; the cases of the self-employed and those employed in the private sector whose employers no longer offer pensions schemes illustrate this in the revelation that increasing numbers of them cannot afford to make adequate pension provision for themselves, in the former case because there's simply insufficient monies left over to fund them and in the latter case in part because of government interference.

[Serial_Apologist]

Not Westminster Bridge, but the other one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=SG&hl=en-GB&v=6sR44kk2NEc

[Lateralthinking1]

I should have thought adequate payment would be related to adequate service. One of the things that I keep hearing is that "only capitalism can get us out of this mess". What concerns me is that it is the same people. I would rather see all the economics handed over to people who are just leaving university.

As for obesity, it is a largely mythical obsession like cholesterol designed to sell medical product. The Sun might have it that everyone who is supposedly obese resembles the Fat Slags in Viz. Actually, you will never see a man in a suit who is raking in loads of money being anything other than weight challenged.

Personally, I have the right weight but I can see that reducing. Just as short-sightedness and deafness are directly related to ego, circumstance and perspective, so are thin and fat. For example, I have an astigmatism because of an offbeat worldview and for the first time ever I have loads of earwax because I can't bear to hear much of what is said in the news.

[ahinton]

I should have thought adequate payment would be related to adequate service.

Er - adequate payument for what? and what service? This sounds almost like the old chestnut of "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay" which in practical terms went out of the window almost before it blew in.

One of the things that I keep hearing is that "only capitalism can get us out of this mess". What concerns me is that it is the same people. I would rather see all the economics handed over to people who are just leaving university.

Capitalism in itself, being a concept rather than a phenomenon capable of acting in its own right, can get us into and out of nothing; only people and the policies that they devise might be able to do that. If you leave "all the economics" to "people who are just leaving university", you might risk leaving responsibility for this vitally important matter to ever-decreasing numbers of people when the new charging structure results in less people being able to afford to take up university places.

As for obesity, it is a largely mythical obsession like cholesterol designed to sell medical product. The Sun might have it that everyone who is supposedly obese resembles the Fat Slags in Viz. Actually, you will never see a man in a suit who is raking in loads of money being anything other than weight challenged.

Personally, I have the right weight but I can see that reducing. Just as short-sightedness and deafness are directly related to ego, circumstance and perspective, so are thin and fat. For example, I have an astigmatism because of an offbeat worldview and for the first time ever I have loads of earwax because I can't bear to hear much of what is said in the news.

It was a joke, no more, no less - and in the form of an aside, at that!

[Lateralthinking1]

I don't understand what you mean by most of this. You can only opt for a public sector pension if you work in the public sector and, as I've said above, whilst most public sector pensions still represent a rather better deal for the workforce than most private sector pensions, there is an artificial historical reason for this. As to "future members of the public sector", who will these be if three quarters of a million of them are to be put out of work?

Oh but they are still employing. GCHQ for one. There are many others I could cite as we all write out this stuff. As we were told that the axe was about to fall in my Department, someone asked why they would still be taking on new fast streamers. The reply from the top was that they had already been offered jobs and to say "no" would be an unforgivable breaking of commitments.

They are worried about the numbers but more to the point they are worried about the expensive numbers. It is all of the £4,000 and £5,000 pensions multiplied by hundreds of thousands rather than the few hundred who will each get £100,000 or whatever. The latter are still to be welcomed onto a gilt-edged carpet with open arms.

On your other point, I don't get what you don't get. Someone owns a house. Granny is given a room there making her life nicer and without expense. The kids hope one day to benefit financially from the sale. No one describes it as "my" house.

Pensions are Granny's way of saying "it is ok - you don't have to pay for my dinner - the state will pay for that and save you money - and I will be able to buy more than an orange at Christmas for the grandchildren". Everyone else in the house is self-employed and grateful. Unless that is, they want to kill off Gran for being privileged.

[ahinton]

Oh but they are still employing. GCHQ for one. There are many others I could cite as we all write out this stuff. As we were told that the axe was about to fall in my Department, someone asked why they would still be taking on new fast streamers. The reply from the top was that they had already been offered jobs and to say "no" would be an unforgivable breaking of commitments.

They are worried about the numbers but more to the point they are worried about the expensive numbers. It is all of the £4,000 and £5,000 pensions multiplied by hundreds of thousands rather than the few hundred who will each get £100,000 or whatever. The latter are still to be welcomed onto a gilt-edged carpet with open arms.

I didn't suggest that no public sector organisation is any longer employing new members of staff, but I did draw attention to the proposed cuts of some 750,000 to overall public sector employee numbers, to which you made no response.

On your other point, I don't get what you don't get. Someone owns a house. Granny is given a room there making her life nicer and without expense. The kids hope one day to benefit financially from the sale. No one describes it as "my" house.

I still don't get the point that you're presumably trying to make here; perhaps your thinking is getting altogether too lateral for me. Do hve another go (if you can be bothered).

Pensions are Granny's way of saying "it is ok - you don't have to pay for my dinner - the state will pay for that and save you money - and I will be able to buy more than an orange at Christmas for the grandchildren". Everyone else in the house is self-employed and grateful. Unless that is, they want to kill off Gran for being privileged.

Pensions are nothing of the kind! By "the state will pay for that" you presumably mean with state retirement benefit, which will continue being paid as now it is only as long as the government has sufficient tax and borrowings available to do so. That said, the meaning and purpose of your analogy is lost on me, I'm afraid.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks. I don't have any more comments at this stage. I'm content that my posts this afternoon depict real lives more than most of what we have had recently in the media.

My feeling is that it wouldn't be fair on Jeremy Clarkson's family to shoot him in front of them. However, given that anything goes now on the BBC, perhaps it will be done on Top Gear?

[ahinton]

Thanks. I don't have any more comments at this stage. I'm content that my posts this afternoon depict real lives more than most of what we have had recently in the media.

My feeling is that it wouldn't be fair on Jeremy Clarkson's family to shoot him in front of them. However, given that anything goes now on the BBC, perhaps it will be done on Top Gear?

Then he'd have to be run over rather than shot, surely?

[Serial_Apologist]

Then he'd have to be run over rather than shot, surely?

Or turned over...