Cancel Employer Pension?

BernardM

This was thoroughly discredited and condemned as a cynical attempt by the Government and employers to gain further control over occupational pension funds.

BernardM

jamesd wrote: »

Those cost something in the range of 25% of salary so your first task will be to persuade people to accept an increase in NI contibutions by about 20-25% of salary.

Nothing stopping us increasing salaries at the same time

BernardM

bendix wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

It's already been pointed out to you that to generate the basic state pension would mean saving a pension pot of around £150,000, something which seems beyond the vast majority of the population.

If you're unhappy about the level of the pension, the answer is simple. Make your own provisions also.

It's called personal responsibility.

Our pensioners should be given a State pension equal to the national average wage. After a lifetime of working – including work in the home – men and women have the right to receive a decent pension.

If a Member of Parliament can get an annual pension of £42,000, there’s no reason why their constituents should not receive an annual pension of £24,000.

bendix

BernardM wrote: »

Our pensioners should be given a State pension equal to the national average wage. After a lifetime of working – including work in the home – men and women have the right to receive a decent pension.

.

Our pensioners, including you I suspect, should do what every one else has to do and make their own provision. The fact that they don't do it is noone's fault except their own.

The state already provides a safety net pension. If they want more, they need to pay for it themselves.

There is no 'natural right' for people to be taken care of by others. Get real.

jamesd

BernardM wrote: »

This was thoroughly discredited and condemned as a cynical attempt by the Government and employers to gain further control over occupational pension funds.

Maybe by you or people who haven't read it. I have. Lets consider:

1. Changing S2P so that more goes to the lower earners and less to the average and higher earners.
2. Retiring later, so there are more working years to pay for the greater number of retired years.
3. Equalising male and female retirement ages because women live longer than men so have an even worse case of the mismatch between working years and time in retirement.
4. Restoring the earnings link for pensions.
5. Finding a way to encourage more pension saving by individuals on their own.

BernardM wrote: »

Nothing stopping us increasing salaries at the same time

Except the jobs leaving the country to cheaper countries and us paying more for what we buy with those higher theoretical incomes. Pay increases have to match productivity increases reasonably closely or the work moves away.

BernardM wrote: »

Our pensioners should be given a State pension equal to the national average wage. After a lifetime of working – including work in the home – men and women have the right to receive a decent pension.

If a Member of Parliament can get an annual pension of £42,000, there’s no reason why their constituents should not receive an annual pension of £24,000.

Why should someone who has made minimum wage or close to it during their working life get more than twice that in retirement? They certainly wouldn't need it to live on or they would have died a few decades earlier, nor is 24k required for a decent life, since I most certainly have one and live on more like half of that. Who's going to pay for a pension of twice the value of their earnings, for a retirement of two thirds of their working life?

dunstonh

Our pensioners should be given a State pension equal to the national average wage.

Wow. That would see significant numbers get a pay rise on retirement and give absolutly no encouragement to save for themselves.

Who is going to pay for that?

BernardM

Ok, Mr Independant Financial Advisor. Have you not thought about redistribution of wealth.

What about if we did that, instead of giving vast sums to Sir Stuart Rose for running M&S lets cut right back on what all the people at the top get and redistribute it, freely.

Lets also cut back on the number of hours we work then there would be hours free for the unemployed to work.

Its terribly simple. We could hardly be any poorer. There has been no real increase in the real wage of people since the seventies. We could just go on giving the real wage of the seventies to everyone, which is what we get today. Spread the wealth. 20% of people are on less than £10,000 a year in this country.

BernardM

50 billion pounds went to the financial institutions.
Rover the British car manufacturer only wanted 100 million to be saved and save thousands of jobs and they got nothing from the government.
Would you rather give it bankers than it given to pensioners and the welfare and care of people in Britain.
jamesd just pointed out a long time advocated socialist/communist demand so you are against the link being restored for pensioners also where is the flaw in that demand.
The biggest financial companies in the world have either had to rely on state intervention to keep functioning, have rushed into huge amalgamations and mergers to survive or have even gone under.


Oh you deleted your 7.00am post dunstonh.

BernardM

jamesd wrote: »

Maybe by you or people who haven't read it. I have. Lets consider:

1. Changing S2P so that more goes to the lower earners and less to the average and higher earners.
2. Retiring later, so there are more working years to pay for the greater number of retired years.
3. Equalising male and female retirement ages because women live longer than men so have an even worse case of the mismatch between working years and time in retirement.
4. Restoring the earnings link for pensions.
5. Finding a way to encourage more pension saving by individuals on their own.


Except the jobs leaving the country to cheaper countries and us paying more for what we buy with those higher theoretical incomes. Pay increases have to match productivity increases reasonably closely or the work moves away.


Why should someone who has made minimum wage or close to it during their working life get more than twice that in retirement? They certainly wouldn't need it to live on or they would have died a few decades earlier, nor is 24k required for a decent life, since I most certainly have one and live on more like half of that. Who's going to pay for a pension of twice the value of their earnings, for a retirement of two thirds of their working life?

Why should 50 billion pounds be given to the financial institutions and bankers who have created the economic and social and political crisis and nothing to the millions of British people who have lost millions of pounds.

Again our pensioners should be given a State pension equal to the national average wage. It could easily be met by this amount.

dunstonh

Rover the British car manufacturer only wanted 100 million to be saved and save thousands of jobs and they got nothing from the government.

Rover should have been put out of its misery in the 60s/70s. Instead it sucked up taxpayers cash for generations. It was never going to make money.

Would you rather give it bankers than it given to pensioners and the welfare and care of people in Britain.

It shouldnt go to pensioners and the welfare state as handouts are already too high and need pulling back a bit. It shouldnt go to bankers or any other individuals. It should be used to prop up the economy which is the best course of action for everyone in all walks of life.

Oh you deleted your 7.00am post dunstonh.

I went to edit something in it and it went rather than be edited. However, the basically I said that we dont live in a communist state and that had failed.

Why should 50 billion pounds be given to the financial institutions and bankers who have created the economic and social and political crisis and nothing to the millions of British people who have lost millions of pounds.

The alternative is far worse.

Again our pensioners should be given a State pension equal to the national average wage. It could easily be met by this amount.

So you believe that borrowing money to pay pensioners, who do not deserve that level of income from the state, is cost efficient and affordable?

What you propose would send all wealth makers overseas and turn the whole population into spongers drawing on a pot that has no money going into it to pay for it all.