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.
📨 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!
War on DB pensions....
Comments
-
Expression of my opinions doesn't differ between the Internet and face to face, for good or bad, and isn't necessarily popular on either domain.
I wasn't talking about you, specifically. There are some perfectly reasonable and interesting posters, but unfortunately alongside them there appear to be many that appear spiteful and hateful, and spend hours of their lives glued to their keyboards…0 -
Hey. look! There's a group over there that I'm not in and looks to be doing well at my expense...let's demonize them.
This is a classic tactic or bias that people fall into. It could be retirees, immigrants, those on benefits even the rich. It might be better to address current issues of wages, low benefit gig economy and the drastic drop in employer pension contributions rather than pulling down retirees.“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0 -
bostonerimus wrote: »Hey. look! There's a group over there that I'm not in and looks to be doing well at my expense...let's demonize them.
The only people being demonised here are a sub-editor, a journalist, and from a weird angle, the BBC.
From your point of view, how can final salary pensions be reported on at all in a non-technical fashion without indicating the recipients had it good, pensions-wise, compared to younger generations...?0 -
From your point of view, how can final salary pensions be reported on at all in a non-technical fashion without indicating the recipients had it good, pensions-wise, compared to younger generations...?
Very simply, buy not using words like 'Jackpot' and the word 'able' in the following; "However, these averages mask inequalities. In particular, the growing disparity between those who have been able to save into a private pension and those who have not."
If the article had said that increasingly people are failing to save enough for a good retirement, I would have no problem, even if they said this is particularly important as fewer people have access to DB pensions....but they did not.
Articles like this (and it's not just the BBC) have the effect of creating a 'them and us' divide that politicians can use to their advantage (reduce LTA etc). We hear about 'hard working families' routinely, but never about pensioners that 'have worked hard all their lives'. Don't take my word for the build up effect articles like this have, read the comments section of the article.
There are many valid ways that this 'news' could have been reported, this article is (IMHO) one of them...."For every complicated problem, there is always a simple, wrong answer"0 -
Sterlingtimes wrote: »Employees were paid salary and benefits in accordance with contracts of employment and decisions that they made about the time shifting of money. Why should there be a proviso that those who benefit today from their work and decisions yesterday should have their income scaled back?
The basic state pension was £10 per week in 1974, based on RPI that would be £27.20 today.
And income tax rates were at least 50% on everything over £8,000 (£22k today).
So if you want people to be locked in to be positive side of the past, how about we lock them into the negative side as well, a massive cut in state pension and a massive rise in tax for workers from the 1970's0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »The basic state pension was £10 per week in 1974, based on RPI that would be £27.20 today.
Not sure where you get that number from. I make it more like £100.
http://www.wolfbane.com/rpi.htm0 -
Very simply, buy not using words like 'Jackpot' and the word 'able' in the following; "However, these averages mask inequalities. In particular, the growing disparity between those who have been able to save into a private pension and those who have not."
What's wrong with the word 'able'? Not all employers offered a final salary pension 'back in the day'. Even those that did typically had preferential terms for executives (e.g. doubled accrual rates). Further, it was normal for part timers not to be eligible - even public sector schemes didn't allow part timers in en masse until covering pensions legislation forced them to in the mid-90s.
Also, while eye-catching, the word 'jackpot' is not unreasonable in a non-technical context, given the full value of DB pensions wasn't recognised until long after. Moreover, if you read this forum regularly, there appears to be a large number of deferred members of private sector final salary schemes who would be quite happy to use the word 'jackpot' in relation to the CETV quotes they are being given.
In essence, the so-called golden age of final salary schemes was highly discriminatory in favour of managers and men, and was backed by (in hindsight) dodgy accounting that obscured the real cost. I don't know where exactly you're coming from, but if you have a modern public sector scheme in mind (so, democratic benefits structure, open to all, and in some cases actually discriminatory in favour of the lowest paid), you aren't actually thinking of DB in its 'golden age'.0 -
-
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards