FAS (PPF) May Start Offering Inflation Increases on Pensions Prior to 1997

PensionsStuff

hyubh said:

PensionsStuff said:

hyubh said:

PensionsStuff said:

hyubh said:

PensionsStuff said:

the already minor levies should be kept the same / increased.

Very droll. 

PPF levy is a incredibly, incredibly, small cost to a pension scheme. As shown by this news, the funding can be used in much better places than shaving 0.0001% off a Schemes liabilities 

It is effectively a tax on schemes well supported by their sponsoring employer to provide a backstop to those that were/are not. Do you yourself receive PPF compensation, or are a deferred member...?

We ignoring the risk based levy (which is the majority of the total levy) by definition is the opposite of what you've just said ?. It punishes those most at risk, those not can reduce this massively.. so im not entirely sure the point you're trying to make.

All private sector DB schemes have to pay it. How is that not effectively a tax? I was also responding to your claim that the levy should be increased to pay for unfunded discretionary obligations of failed schemes. The fact the levy is not single tier has no bearing on that.

It is car insurance, in simple terms drive safely for years and it goes down, drive badly and yours goes up, people who drive safely aren't paying more to cover for the other group

The PPF did not exist when most schemes subject to the levy began. In fact when the PPF was introduced, the general closure of private sector DB schemes was well under way. The introduction of the levy, in other words, was inherently retrospective.

I'm still interested whether you yourself would be personally set to gain from what you propose, and if not, whether someone close to you would...

I don't particularly care or not whether someone views it as a tax, it doesn't make a difference to anything. 

You don't need to be interested, I already told you. I work in the industry, I see what Pension Schemes spend money on, i see the incredibly over inflated adviser costs, i see the expenses, i see the meetings to discuss when the next meeting will be to then have a meeting to discuss what happened in the meeting which the Scheme lawyer is charging £400 a pop to attend.

A scheme member should not be punished through absolutely no fault of their own if their Scheme fails. This isn't someone making bad investments, they have zero say in their DB pension. Ill repeat. I would much rather all Schemes pay extra that they will quite literally not even notice as it will be a 4th decimal rounding error on their accounts , to allow members better benefits e.g in the form of inflation linked pre97 increases .

Welcome to the real world where people are expected to cover the costs of others are times. If anyone has a problem with it, don't use the road outside your house as someone else paid for that.

westv

hyubh said:

westv said:

hyubh said:

PensionsStuff said:

hyubh said:

PensionsStuff said:

the already minor levies should be kept the same / increased.

Very droll. 

PPF levy is a incredibly, incredibly, small cost to a pension scheme. As shown by this news, the funding can be used in much better places than shaving 0.0001% off a Schemes liabilities 

It is effectively a tax on schemes well supported by their sponsoring employer to provide a backstop to those that were/are not. Do you yourself receive PPF compensation, or are a deferred member...?

Levy or tax, it's still better than the previous situation

My objection is to the idea that actually existing PPF compensation is not enough, and well funded schemes and their sponsoring employers should be made to pay for 'rectifying' this situation.

So hard luck to those with service prior to 97?to
Has/will there be an increase in the levy to fund the new indexation?