pension

clydefreeman

Yes, you cannot get it back. You need to start it again.

redbuzzard

kidmugsy wrote: »

Oh thank goodness, you used "moot" to mean moot . I now come across so many people using it in the American sense...

He he. I consider myself cautioned!

My closest work colleague, also a friend, always said "mute".

I like to think a "mute point" is that smart answer I always think of too late, and never get to use.

Apology to the OP for the drift.

@john cavill -

What can you do?

Looking at your other post, it seems you are drawing the pension already, so probably not much. What age are you? Are you getting the state pension? Do you have other pension provision?

margaretclare

kidmugsy wrote: »

Oh thank goodness, you used "moot" to mean moot . I now come across so many people using it in the American sense that I have no idea which sense each user means.

Anyway, I reserve "rob" for government action that is (i) retrospective or (ii) entirely arbitrary and contrary to our constitutional conventions.

What he did was neither, however odious it was.

I don't know what the American sense is, but I read the word 'moot' as 'meeting' in the Old English sense: folkmoot or gathering. From this, I imagine the sense of 'discussion' came into it.

I agree. I'm not a great fan of GB, but he didn't 'rob'.

redbuzzard

The reason I think it's arguably robbery is that it affected the ultimate value of savings already made into a pension by reducing the returns.

OK, so you didn't know what those returns were going to be anyway, but they are as a consequence of the raid less than they would have been, on money that had already been saved on the basis of an assumption as to its future value.

That's before you start on the effect on FS schemes, mortality notwithstanding.

Brown was only thinking of DB schemes and assuming that companies, and surpluses, would fund it. In fact, the savers paid and are paying and will pay until they die.

I agree it's arguable - view it as a tax and it isn't robbery. View it as reneging on the basis on which millions of people had made decisions affecting the rest of their lives, and it feels like robbery to me - not in a statutory sense maybe, but morally. I thought that then, and I think it now.

Amelia_Smith

That is moot at best. The action reduced the future value of contributions already made, so in my mind it was robbery.

Andy_L

kidmugsy wrote: »

If he had looted your pension retrospectively, the use of "robbed" would be fair. But he didn't, so however nasty, vindictive, or foolish his action was, it wasn't robbery.

and even if it was then John Major & Norman Lamont did the same so best have a chat with them too

Andy_L

Amelia_Smith wrote: »

That is moot at best. The action reduced the future value of contributions already made, so in my mind it was robbery.

So what about increases in income tax that will reduce the value of the pension in payment? Is that not theft by the same logic?

redbuzzard

Andy_L wrote: »

So what about increases in income tax that will reduce the value of the pension in payment? Is that not theft by the same logic?

I think I acknowledged that point in advance For some reason Amelia Smith simply repeated an earlier post of mine.

I wasn't intending to fight in a ditch over the definition of theft, and I have also acknowledged that it doesn't meet the legal requirements.

But I doubt that even GB intended the full consequences of what he did. He probably had in mind that the guaranteed benefits for the members in DB schemes would be unaffected, and the sponsors/employers who guaranteed them would either just fund them from surpluses or cough up without really noticing.

In fact there was collateral damage to the ongoing value of money purchase assets already in place, and assisted by poor market returns and mortality changes, the closure of the majority of those DB schemes to further accrual.

I don't really do blame as a rule, the only person who suffers is usually the blamer. I try to take the view that worse things happen at sea. But the fact remains that the consequences for me meant I put £82k of net earned income into a SIPP to try and put things right, and even that is about half of enough. So I feel entitled to be annoyed, even though I try not to be.

Whether is was theft is both moot (UK meaning) and moot (US meaning);)

grey_gym_sock

you could also say that the SERPS/S2P/flat rate pension changes are theft (i.e. both previous and proposed changes). because many ppl will get lower pensions than they expected.

you could say it's theft when they increase income tax or NI while you still have the same salary, so your net income is less than you'd have expected. or your net pension is worth less. or your net investment income.

you could say it's theft when they increase VAT, so your income buys less stuff.

you could say theft when they cut or means-test benefits which you were relying on.

you could say it's theft when they fail to increase tax thesholds or benefits levels in line with inflation.

you could say it's theft when they cut public services which you were relying on.

you could say it's theft when they keep interest rates below inflation, so the real value of your savings falls.

it isn't, though.

grey_gym_sock

but on the issue of whether it's because of gordon brown's tax changes that so many DB pension schemes have been closed ...

it's surely a factor, but a vastly bigger factor is the relatively poor performance of stock markets in the 00s compared to the 80s and 90s. that did much more to make the schemes look expensive to employers.