We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Plan to change private pension inflation link

1235713

Comments

  • artha
    artha Posts: 5,254 Forumite
    vivatifosi wrote: »

    My position remains the same - accrued benefits are contractual and should be sacrosanct. If companies want to change schemes going forward then they should be able to - that is where their flexibility lies.

    This is what I currently believe is the case for the corporate scheme to which I belong. The fund is legally bound to provide benefits for those already in retirement at the level set at the time of retirement. Yearly evaluations (formerly 3 year) are made to ensure the value of the fund is sufficient to fulfill this obligation. I believe that "insurance policies" are in place to ensure this. Changes have been made over many years but can only apply to future pensioners.
    Awaiting a new sig
  • Sir_Humphrey
    Sir_Humphrey Posts: 1,978 Forumite
    If you start tearing up legal contracts, you are on a very slippery slope.

    I wonder what other contracts the government may choose to tear up by governmental decree/legislation?

    Ironic that I am on the side of the rule of law and legal contracts, and Generali on the side of state dictat. Perhaps he has forgotten his Hayek and Schumpeter?

    What a funny world we are living in right now.
    Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith
  • tincans
    tincans Posts: 124 Forumite
    A._Badger wrote: »

    Jeff Randall, formerly about the BBC's sole non-socialist pundit, now with the Telegraph,

    The usual sad nonsense about how the BBC is a socialist, anti American, anti Israeli empire. Its laughable.

    Andrew Neil
    Michael Portillo
    Nick Robinson

    would suggest probably not.

    You could accuse the BBC of being liberal, metropolitan and multi cultural.

    But Socialist ? I don't think so unless your sole news source is Fox News.
  • tomterm8
    tomterm8 Posts: 5,892 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    All I can say is that the Tory party are a real bunch of !!!!!! for doing this. But the fact they go out of their way to hurt ordinary people shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
    “The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
    ― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens
  • PasturesNew
    PasturesNew Posts: 70,698 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    It's fab not having a pension to worry about :)
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    If you start tearing up legal contracts, you are on a very slippery slope.

    I wonder what other contracts the government may choose to tear up by governmental decree/legislation?

    Ironic that I am on the side of the rule of law and legal contracts, and Generali on the side of state dictat. Perhaps he has forgotten his Hayek and Schumpeter?

    What a funny world we are living in right now.

    TBH old chap I think I've thoroughly missed the point with this thread.

    I think it's inevitable that pension schemes, both state and privately run, are going to default on their promises as for many they are too generous to be afforded.

    It's the end of the financial year here and I've had a brutal week. Can someone explain using short words and pictures !!!!!! is going on re this? I just seem to be getting it wrong.

    Thx.
  • Sir_Humphrey
    Sir_Humphrey Posts: 1,978 Forumite
    Generali wrote: »
    I've had a brutal week.

    Join the club, mate.

    :beer: (Virtual beer after work)
    Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith
  • lemonjelly
    lemonjelly Posts: 8,014 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker Mortgage-free Glee!
    tomterm8 wrote: »
    All I can say is that the Tory party are a real bunch of !!!!!! for doing this. But the fact they go out of their way to hurt ordinary people shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

    When the condems coalition was announced, my gut feeling was two-fold:

    1 the tories will present themselves as the horrible, spiteful, self-centred & self-serving nasty party who create a lot of social tension and inequality, thus creating another generation who will regularly say "I am not voting for them ever again!"

    2 the lib-dems will ultimately split, as the idealogical differences between the 2 parties make ongoing co-operation unsustainable, & the grass roots in particular will grow increasingly dissatisfied & even sold out by party leaders.

    I stand by both gut feelings...
    It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Join the club, mate.

    :beer: (Virtual beer after work)

    Cheers Sir H. I just had my first real one of the night (hard earned this week) and now I'm on the bus home.
  • tomterm8
    tomterm8 Posts: 5,892 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Generali wrote: »
    TBH old chap I think I've thoroughly missed the point with this thread.

    I think it's inevitable that pension schemes, both state and privately run, are going to default on their promises as for many they are too generous to be afforded.

    You are missing the fact that UK law has mechanisms in place in order to deal with pension defaults where they are inevitable, allowing pension fund liabilities to be restructured ( and requiring businesses to make up some of the shortfall). This move won't effect pension funds that can't meet their obligations. But it will mean than pension funds that CAN meet their obligations will be forced to default on them.

    We are going through various default methodologies at the moment... some of them, like the change in pension age, are necessary changes. Some, like changing the benefit of future retirees are also unfortunate but somewhat necessary. But this one, by changing benefits already agreed, when it isn't necessary, and when it will discourage people saving for their retirement, is beyond the pale.

    It will mean that people rely more heavily on the state benefits during retirement. Its purpose it to put the costs of caring for the elderly from businesses to the state, and it will increase our future pension liabilities at the same time as people will become poorer throughout their old age.
    “The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
    ― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.