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

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

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

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

Would there not be a link to the two? EG the more the tax payer pays the less they can save their self?

Also aren't the decrease in costs based on GDP going as planed up to 2050.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

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

So if they did not have heavily subsidised pensions they would refuse to save for retirement.
Is that not a mixed message to the private sector, EG what's the point.

I see this as a odd socialist idea (we subsidise all state pensions to stop just the poorest earners falling into retirement poverty), the idea of socialism to me is fair to all, the system clearly is not fair to all at the moment.

One expert on the radio went on about the poorest generally have longer working lives and shorter lifespans after retirement.
The richer generally start work later in life and retire earlier and live longer.
This does not seem to be an issue though.

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

As I said before, the recession has provided a great opportunity for the Torylition to line up all their ideological ducks in a row.

And this is a classic example, even if it costs more money :eek:

The letter, from Communities Secretary Eric Pickles' private secretary to his opposite number in the Prime Minister's office, will be deeply embarrassing to the coalition.
It suggests the estimated £270m saving from the cap may end up as a net loss, because 40,000 people could be made homeless.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/benefits-cap-could-leave-thousands-homeless-020153503.html

johnny_storm

I could afford a bag of crisps at £10, that doesnt mean I would want to pay it or think it worth the money.