Pensions Minister: Get ready for the 2012 revolution

no_choice_now

Lokolo wrote: »

This does really show your lack of understanding of pensions.

You can take your pension from 55, the age at which hasn't changed (to my knowledge). The only age that has changed that has to do with pensions is the state pension - which this has nothing to do with. You are also not giving the government the money, you are giving it to pension providers, who do not decide when you can have it and what age.

If you put money in a savings account you run the risk of inflation shortfall over a long period. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics will know this.

By all means S&S ISAs are a realistic alternative to pensions but they do not come with benefits such as company contributions and tax relief.

Absolute claptrap.

Wait by any post office in the morning for the queue of old ladies to get their meager pension allowance out each week and try and tell them this. You won't make it out the post office alive.

no_choice_now

chattychappy wrote: »

Yep, and probably for a good reason.

Good reasons for communist China not communist Britain.

Only in Britain is it possible to lose 75% of your income to the government.

Lokolo

no_choice_now wrote: »

Absolute claptrap.

Wait by any post office in the morning for the queue of old ladies to get their meager pension allowance out each week and try and tell them this. You won't make it out the post office alive.

You seem to be confused. We are not talking about the state pension.

Lokolo

no_choice_now wrote: »

Good reasons for communist China not communist Britain.

Only in Britain is it possible to lose 75% of your income to the government.

And infact no matter how much you earn, in Germany, 50% goes in taxes straight away, even if you are a lower earner.

no_choice_now

chattychappy wrote: »

People should take responsibility for themselves - and if that means forcing them, then so be it.

You cannot force people to take responsibility.

The government shouldn't even be thinking about "forcing" people to do anything - are we all not free sovereign beings under natural law with inalienable rights? Born free and not as slaves?

Nobody but G-d has a mandate to force their will upon anybody.

mrBlue

This is no doubt a good publicity opportunity for Mr Webb for NEST, and though the original objective was laudable, it needs to be put into a broader context, as some moneysavers have tried to do.
Now Australia has managed to do it properly, including substantial employee & employer contributions, I understand. Those who are regular readers of investment and pension websites will be aware of the views of the financial and pensions experts, including pensions pressure-groups, which are, to say the least, mostly sceptical especially for those who remain on low incomes who will probably get back less than putting it into a savings account, and may end up losing benefits to boot. Let's be honest: a total contribution (from employee, employer, and tax benefit) of about 15% of earnings is needed to achieve a "reasonable" pension after 40-45 years work, not 1% or 8%.
There will also be some disturbing side-effects of this change, which should blow up in Mr Webb's face - assuming he's still there in 2012-2013. The first is that this "State-sponsored - and therefore sound - scheme" will give employers with better existing schemes another excuse to close them and chuck all their employees into NEST, reducing their contributions from 6-9% to 1-4%, thus destroying many peoples' pensions. Perhaps Mr Webb can come up with legislation to stop this, but I doubt it - he expects it to happen: Lest we forget, this is the same man who changed the basis of pension increases from RPI to CPI and sought to justify it on grounds that were either very badly advised, innaccurate and misunderstood, or deviously dishonest in order to save the treasury £billions and thereby seriously devalue 60 million peoples' pensions (both State and Occupational) by an average of 15% over 10 years. Would you buy a second-hand car - or even NEST - from this man?

chattychappy

no_choice_now wrote: »

You cannot force people to take responsibility.

The government shouldn't even be thinking about "forcing" people to do anything - are we all not free sovereign beings under natural law with inalienable rights? Born free and not as slaves?

Nobody but G-d has a mandate to force their will upon anybody.

Actually I agree totally. But if a decision is made that people aren't taking responsibility then it is better to "force" them rather than shifting the responsibility to companies.

The problem is that people know if they do nothing then the welfare state will pick up the tab - so they know they don't need to take responsibility.

no_choice_now

chattychappy wrote: »

Actually I agree totally. But if a decision is made that people aren't taking responsibility then it is better to "force" them rather than shifting the responsibility to companies.

The problem is that people know if they do nothing then the welfare state will pick up the tab - so they know they don't need to take responsibility.

Well I agree that is truly a shame if people choose not to take personal responsibility but I would rather let them burn that bridge when they come to it.

There is something very menacing about governments "forcing" people to do things "for their own benefit".

History has heard that excuse a few too many times already.

Aegis

no_choice_now wrote: »

Well I agree that is truly a shame if people choose not to take personal responsibility but I would rather let them burn that bridge when they come to it.

There is something very menacing about governments "forcing" people to do things "for their own benefit".

History has heard that excuse a few too many times already.

It's not just "for their own benefit", it's designed to reduce the ongoing expenditure required for state pension and other benefits. It's a pretty smart move to reduce the burden on the younger generation of taxpayers.

Money_Saving_Dude

no_choice_now wrote: »

There is something very menacing about governments "forcing" people to do things "for their own benefit".

Well, it's a shame but sometimes if you leave things to the people they will do the wrong thing. Capital punishment is an example; put this to a referendum and we will have it back in a shot [pun intended], yet it is clearly a sign of a civilised society that it is abolished.

Don't force people to save for their old age, and what happens? They will simply demand the state gives them a pension. Isn't this the exact same moral hazard argument that was used against the bankers? Too big to fail so we will bailed them out. Yet ask Joe public what he thinks of that and he will tell you it was wrong.

I'm afraid that 'nanny state' has many benefits, one of which are Benefits!