The Budget

[amateur51]

And it's being going on for quite a while. Made redundant in 1993, we were proffered better return pensions if we contracted out of the company scheme, an "independent" financial adviser being brought in for a 3-day lecture on the purported benefits, then allocated by them to "appropriate providers" - all as I was to realise 12 years down the road a scheme for offloading the employer's long-term costs. By a clerical omission my membership of the latter was not deleted; I received a company letter informing me as to what I was due for, which would have been twice the rapidly shrinking amount I am now getting. The one consolation I can think of is that, had I stayed, it would probably have placed me in a higher tax bracket.

While Ams is right to draw attention to the bleak future facing the young, many of us now retired were conned.

Very sorry to hear of your rotten experience S_A :steam:

i was 'sold' the idea of opting out of SERPS in 1987 in return for some tax refund or other to get my pension pot going. A friend who stayed in SERPS has been reaping a quite considerable benefit on his state pension as a result.

I feel sorry too for those who were advised to buy an annuity and now have to watch those about to take their pension pot being offered a vastly different set-up upon retirement - green with justifiable envy I should imagine.

[ardcarp]

sucked up by EU nationals.
Last edited by amateur51; Today at 15:31. Reason: trypo

Ah -ha-ha-ha!!!

But seriously, on the subject of the scandals of private pensions, it was drawn to my attention what the charges actually mean. The insurance co. may say they take a 1% admin charge during the course of your contribution period. Very reasonable you might think. But that charge is not just on your annual contribution, it's on the total pension pot you accrue EVERY YEAR. So if you stick in £2000 annually, they take 20 quid off the first year, forty quid the next (plus a bit more on the interest) 60 quid the next, and so on, until you approach retirement when, if your pot gets to, say, £60,000 they'll be taking £600 quid off.

Is this spelled out in the small print? It may be, but it's sure as hell not in big print anywhere.

[Serial_Apologist]

My annuity company was taken over by another, then another, and then another. It would take me a month of Sundays to go through all the accompanying paperwork and changing mastheads, but I don't remember anything much beyond declarations that it would not be necessary for me to do anything, just sit and let it all happen.

[mercia]

it always intrigues me how "policy" comes into existence. Who comes up with policy ideas, is it civil servants, think-tanks, or the like ? Why is reforming pensions thought a good idea now, but not previously ? Labour says they wouldn't reverse pension reforms, and the other week I read that nor would they reverse education reforms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26693266

I guess it's all about which side comes up with the good idea first, and takes the credit

[french frank]

it always intrigues me how "policy" comes into existence. Who comes up with policy ideas, is it civil servants, think-tanks, or the like ?

I would imagine that most political parties have 'policy committees' - a mix of senior party members and political specialist advisers - which react according to prevailing circumstances and present policy ideas which are thought to be, broadly speaking, in line with the particular stance of that party. These would go before a wider membership e.g. at conferences, for ratification. Some parties may have 'shorter' versions ...

Why is reforming pensions thought a good idea now, but not previously ? Labour says they wouldn't reverse pension reforms, and the other week I read that nor would they reverse education reforms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26693266

I guess it's all about which side comes up with the good idea first, and takes the credit

I don't know why one area is picked on rather than another, except that, for instance, privatisation will tend to be an area picked on by one side rather than another. And privatisation of the railways, for example, was not an area where the Labour Party expressed the intention of 'reversing' the policy either.

In some cases, I suspect it's made very difficult to 'reverse' policy, however much it may be seen to be desirable. In other cases, one party may heave a sigh of relief that it was 'the other lot' who took the flak for the inevitable.

[mercia]

yes, that all makes sense to me :smiley: I expect pensions reform was a stated intention in manifestoes at the last general election, but I just wasn't paying sufficient attention at the time. I was about to say it's a vote-winning policy, but then if all parties think it's a good idea then that's a score-draw isn't it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

it always intrigues me how "policy" comes into existence. Who comes up with policy ideas, is it civil servants, think-tanks, or the like ? Why is reforming pensions thought a good idea now, but not previously ? Labour says they wouldn't reverse pension reforms, and the other week I read that nor would they reverse education reforms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26693266

I guess it's all about which side comes up with the good idea first, and takes the credit

Except that these were not good ideas. Labour is showing very little bottle by simply accepting bad policies, simply because reversing them might take some effort.

[french frank]

Except that these were not good ideas. Labour is showing very little bottle by simply accepting bad policies, simply because reversing them might take some effort.

They may not be 'good ideas' from one particular point of view, but to assume that they are accepted by Labour because they have 'no bottle' and don't want to make the effort doesn't seem to me to make sense.

If there were obvious alternative 'good ideas' why would Labour not adopt them?

[jean]

Unfortunately, more than bottle is often needed to reverse a policy decision.

Re-nationalising the railways would have been prohibitively expensive (though I always thought it might have been worth Labour announcing in advance of the election that if they won, they would take the railways back into public ownership without compensation).

But re-regulating the buses wouldn't have cost anything, and they didn't do that either.

[Flosshilde]

In some cases, I suspect it's made very difficult to 'reverse' policy, however much it may be seen to be desirable. In other cases, one party may heave a sigh of relief that it was 'the other lot' who took the flak for the inevitable.

Nothing 'inevitable' abouit privatising railways (or anything else, really) - ideological pure & simple. Or desparation; even Thatcher avoided it, it was Major who did it, probably because there was nothing left to privatise & he was anxious to earn brownie points with the party.

[amateur51]

Unfortunately, more than bottle is often needed to reverse a policy decision.

Re-nationalising the railways would have been prohibitively expensive (though I always thought it might have been worth Labour announcing in advance of the election that if they won, they would take the railways back into public ownership without compensation).

But re-regulating the buses wouldn't have cost anything, and they didn't do that either.

I'm sure that that nice Mr Souter wouldn't give up his profitable routes without a fight, jean.

My suspicion is that Labour is giving Gideon enough rope so that the liberalisation of pensions can be tried & tested. Labour will have plenty of ammo if/when it starts to unravel, which would be more than enough to blight the Tories' reputation for fiscal prudence & competent economic management.

I wonder what Messrs Clegg and Alexander and Dr Cable think of it all.

[jean]

I'm sure that that nice Mr Souter wouldn't give up his profitable routes without a fight, jean.

He wouldn't have to; I'm talking about reversing deregulation, not privatisation.

This was written in 2006, but the recommended changes have not been made:

The past 20 years of deregulation in the bus service have shown that it does not work and cannot be made to work, MPs have warned.

The transport select committee says the current system of competition is "clearly failing many non-core routes and the communities [that] depend on them".

Bus passenger numbers have been falling since the 1950s and deregulation has done little to halt this - between 2000 and 2005, they fell by seven per cent in the regions. In London, where a regulated system remains, there has been a 32 per cent increase.

[aeolium]

Re-nationalising the railways would have been prohibitively expensive (though I always thought it might have been worth Labour announcing in advance of the election that if they won, they would take the railways back into public ownership without compensation).

It may have been prohibitively expensive a decade or so ago, but would it be now? East Coast Main Line is currently effectively run by the state (through the company Directly Operated Railways) who took over the franchise recently and it would be perfectly possible to let other private franchises "wither away" so that the operation devolved to the state. Network Rail operating the infrastructure is a statutory corporation created as a not-for-dividend private company but could relatively easily be taken back into public ownership, since there is no legal owner. Given that public subsidy of the privatised rail system is far higher than it was for the nationalised network it could even make economic sense.

[french frank]

Nothing 'inevitable' abouit privatising railways (or anything else, really) - ideological pure & simple. Or desparation; even Thatcher avoided it, it was Major who did it, probably because there was nothing left to privatise & he was anxious to earn brownie points with the party.

I didn't say it was. That, for me, would come under the first heading: "very difficult to 'reverse' policy, however much it may be seen to be desirable".

[teamsaint]

here is a VERY interesting article about the pensions reforms, which suggest they may be the first stage in a complete overhaul of personal taxation.

some interesting ideas, which would have profound implications.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b199823a-b053-11e3-8058-00144feab7de.html