'The Government is on very thin ice here if it's going down the affordability route'

daveyjp

I'm pleased at least one audience memebr on Question Time last night actually questioned the policy that for the last 20-30 years in the UK there has been no requirement for anyone to actually save for a pension or for employers to contribute to one for their employees.

The cost to the taxpayers of paying benefits to pensioners now and into the future who didn't save a penny because they didn't have to is never questioned.

System

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Nobody is saying change anything retrospectively..

Why not? I am

Procrastinator333

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Why not? I am

A) Simply not fair. How would you feel if your employer was able to remove a large portion of what they had paid in to your pension over the last 10 years? Or if they turned around and said actually, we decided we paid you too much last year, we want 20% of it back.

all the employees have a contract of employment. So it ain't going to happen.

C) The chaos that would ensue from the uncertainty such a move would create would be huge. Who would ever save in a pension again if it could all be taken away at a later date?

They are just a few reasons. If you think it is possible, sensible or fair, you are a bit thick really.

Mr_Mumble

LydiaJ wrote: »

Interesting. Do you know if this kind of information is available for the various pension schemes separately anywhere?

Info and links can be found in a previous post here. I'll repost the table here:



One important difference between the overall and separate pension scheme numbers (from page 128-129 of the OBR report):

The forecast also includes additional receipts from an assumed increase in current contribution rates from 2012-13 onwards. This was announced as part of the Spending Review, was included in our November forecast and is forecast to raise approximately £2.8 billion by 2014-15. Details of how this will impact across schemes have not been announced so this is added as an overall global adjustment to total receipts. It is therefore not included in the scheme by scheme analysis shown in the supplementary fiscal tables.

Really2

daveyjp wrote: »

The cost to the taxpayers of paying benefits to pensioners now and into the future who didn't save a penny because they didn't have to is never questioned.

Perhaps they were lead to believe their tax and NI stamp was their to provide a sufficient pension at retirement age?
Or maybe the 2.5M claiming pension credit were some of the poorest in society and have been on state support for many years? Out of the 10.5M over 65's it is more than possible, especially if you look at unemployment & economically inactive stats.

Perhaps the idea of state support is the problem and takes away the incentive to plan.

abaxas

Really2 wrote: »

Perhaps the idea of state support is the problem and takes away the incentive to plan.

Always been the case.

Those that dont plan get a great deal
Those that plan a little get royally boogared.
Those whith monster plans get a great deal.

Best to have nothing or too much.

Really2

abaxas wrote: »

Always been the case.

Those that dont plan get a great deal
Those that plan a little get royally boogared.
Those whith monster plans get a great deal.

Best to have nothing or too much.

Indeed ,most of the private sector will fall in to option 2.

The average private sector pension paid at the moment is around £1700 if I remember correctly. It totals at just enough not to qualify for pension credit (surprise).

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

Indeed ,most of the private sector will fall in to option 2.

The average private sector pension paid at the moment is around £1700 if I remember correctly. It totals at just enough not to qualify for pension credit (surprise).

Perhaps the issue is that private sector pensions are too low?

Cameron scored an own goal last night by starting his speech announcing over 50% of public sector pensions are £6k a year or less.

The Hutton report clearly shows that affordability is not an issue with public sector pensions.

It is also clear that ongoing costs for public sector pensions are decreasing YoY.

Accordingly, the tories have their wires crossed as to why they need to push this ideology through. Cameron says the schemes are about to go bust - they're not, & are getting more affordable all the time. Gove says it is labours fault (muppet that he is). Others argue it is a cost reduction exercise.

I'd suggest there is a false economy. We will end up with more pensioners on expensive means tested benefits.

Condem arguements on this issue are inconsistent at best. Problem is, they are refusing any negotiations & have stated that specific issues are non-negotiable.

ultrawomble

lemonjelly wrote: »

Problem is, they are refusing any negotiations & have stated that specific issues are non-negotiable.

Politicians aren't really known for letting common sense prevail over ideology.

Mr_Mumble

StevieJ wrote: »

On This Week, they were discussing how a chart from the Hutton report showed the the dwindling % of public sector pensions to gdp and how the Govt had quietly changed their tack from unnaffordale to untenable In fact due to the sacrifices already made the % fall from 2% in 2010 to stabilise at 1% in the future.

That chart is based on the assumption CPI will be 2% and earnings growth 4.6% throughout the time period!

The Government Actuaries Department who drew up the chart for Hutton have been consistently underestimating pension costs for the past 30 years, why are they going to be right this time?

Labour costs as a % of GDP are falling, if you try and flatline government pensions as a % of GDP they'll continue to rise versus the private sector. Why the immoral linking to GDP anyway? How is linking a public sector worker's compensation to the productivity of others going to improve productivity in the public sector?

The coalition government came into power waffling on about fairness. There is nothing fair about public sector workers getting three times the pension of private sector workers.