The State Of British Pensions Under Mr. Brown

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kathy
  • Start date Start date
K

Kathy

Guest
There has been alot of mileage recently in the press about the amount that Gordon Brown has evidently pilfered from the UK's Pension pot. I know that there are a few on here that apparently hang on Gordon's every word so I just wondered if any of the following is true (courtesy of Moneyweek) and if it isn't, what is the truth. I am genuinely interested in what people think about this.

The biggest lies have a tendency to come back and haunt you when you least want them to - particularly if you‘re a politician. Still, they never seem to learn.

One of Gordon Brown’s first acts as Chancellor was to rob everyone’s pension funds blind to the tune of about £5bn a year. Now, as that would have compounded up over the years, he’s probably cost us around £100bn, some experts reckon.

It’s shocking. It was shocking when it happened way back in 1997, and it’s still shocking now. £100bn - that’s £100,000,000,000.00. That’s enough to give every man, woman and child in the UK around £1,650 each.

What’s really shocking about it though, is that despite magazines like MoneyWeek, and plenty of other newspapers and broadcasters mentioning it at regular intervals, it hasn’t really ever seemed to make a dent in the public consciousness.

Well, not until now, at least…
 
Now, as that would have compounded up over the years, he’s probably cost us around £100bn, some experts reckon.

"probably"

"around"

"some"

"reckon"

Was the back of a fag packet involved in the calculation?
 
This nonsense was soundly demolished on Newsnight last night. By far the biggest effect on the Pensions industry has been the poor performance of the Stock Market. At the time of Brown`s tax changes the pension funds had massive surpluses and it has, in the main, been the falls in the Stock Market which has caused the present situation, contrary to what the Daily Diana says.
 
Originally posted by Desperate Dan@Apr 3 2007, 12:16 PM
This nonsense was soundly demolished on Newsnight last night. By far the biggest effect on the Pensions industry has been the poor performance of the Stock Market. At the time of Brown`s tax changes the pension funds had massive surpluses and it has, in the main, been the falls in the Stock Market which has caused the present situation, contrary to what the Daily Diana says.
The other main inhibitor on final salary pension schemes was the contribution 'holiday' taken by many companies through the nineties that held no slack for the stock market crash following 9/11.
The 'raid' on pension funds by Brown is actually only to the tune of about one half of a percent and, while it obviously didn't help, it was peanuts compared to the holiday/stock market issues.
 
There seems to be an awful lot of people incensed by Gordon's decision back in 1997. Did Tony Blair really intervene to stop Brown taking an even a bigger chunk? I am sure more information will surface in the next few weeks/months. I am trying to keep more of a handle on everyday politics (as the thought of going to evening classes to study economics doesn't appeal) which is why I am interested to hear what other people think about this particular subject.


Row grows over Brown's 'pensions raid'
Press Association
Monday April 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The Treasury was mired in a row with business leaders today as Gordon Brown struggled to shake off the outcry over changes to taxes on pensions.
The department denied claims that the chancellor had intended to take a much larger bite out of pensions funds but backed down after a row with Tony Blair.

They dismissed claims that Mr Brown wanted, before his 1997 budget, to raise £8bn every year but was forced to settle for £5bn.

Present and former heads of the Confederation of British Industry denied the suggestion - made by the economic secretary, Ed Balls - that it had pressed for the change.
They said that Mr Balls' claims were "completely untrue".

And opposition parties called on Mr Brown to apologise to pensioners over the tax change, which went against the advice of some officials, according to Treasury documents released on Friday.

Lord Turner, who was director-general of the CBI from 1995 to 1999, said: "As the CBI has already made clear, at no time whatsoever did the CBI support the policy of removing the dividend tax credit.

"And when the change was introduced in the 1997 budget, I wrote to the chancellor expressing our disagreement."

He said that it was possible an "individual member" of the CBI board expressed the opinion, but it was never CBI policy.

A statement from Mr Balls left open that possibility, as he spelled out when and where he was "pressed" by senior CBI members, while maintaining the decision was not made on the basis of "external representations".

"As I have said before, senior CBI members pressed us on this issue in 1996, including at a meeting of the CBI president's committee.

"However, the decisions we took in budget 1997 were based not on any external representations, but on considered advice, and on the judgment we made on what was necessary to promote long-term business investment in the UK, which has risen by 50% over the subsequent 10 years."

Richard Lambert, the CBI's current director-general, told the Financial Times that the CBI had privately warned the chancellor that the tax credit cut was "not a good idea".

"There was a misjudgment by the chancellor," Mr Lambert added.

A London Evening Standard report that the chancellor backed down over an even bigger tax credit cut after an intervention by Mr Blair was also denied.

In response to the newspaper's claims, a Treasury spokesman said: "The government policy on dividend tax credits was set out in budget 1997, including the impact on revenues.

"We do not recognise any other figure."

The Tories said that, without the prime minister's intervention, the damage that could have been done to pension funds by the chancellor's original plan would have been "even worse".

The shadow pensions secretary, Philip Hammond, said: "Gordon Brown's betrayal of pensioners in the 1997 budget was carried but not only against civil service advice but even against the will of the prime minister.

"This revelation today shows that, if it hadn't been for Tony Blair's insistence on watering down Gordon Brown's tax raid, the damage would have been even worse than the £100bn hit that pensions funds have already suffered."

Mr Brown's Tory predecessor, Kenneth Clarke, said that the decision to remove the credit was "one of the worst decisions" the chancellor had ever made.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It is obvious when we look back that it had been a very bad decision. His judgment was wrong.

"He should plainly, we can now see, have rejected this idea but he was desperate to get revenue and he was rather charging ahead when he got into office without taking time to think what he was doing.

"This is one of the worst decisions that Gordon Brown made and it has done a lot of damage to pensioners, not just their pension funds."

Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman, said that Mr Brown had made a "serious mistake" and called on the chancellor to apologise to pensioners who had lost out.

"Gordon Brown's desire to increase taxes through the back door rather than being honest has resulted in a great deal of damage to private and occupational pension funds," he said.

"Gordon Brown must acknowledge that he made a serious mistake.

"He got it wrong and he should apologise to all those pensioners who are now out of pocket."
 
I'll be interested to hear who are the "some who hang on Gordon Brown's every word".

I was a trustee of a medium to large pension fund at the time of the change and we discussed the implications at a couple of our monthly meetings. While Richard Lambert, the director-general of the CBI, is right when he says that the CBI did not support the move there were certainly some in the City who had advocated the move in the interests of combating short-termism. When the chancellor sat down after delivering his budget on July 2nd 1997 the stock market actually rose - and continued to do so for over two years.

What his opponents have spent the last decade referring to as Gordon Brown's great pensions raid was simply the removal of an obscure benefit that allowed pension funds to claim back the tax on share dividends. Norman Lamont had already squeezed the credit so that it was worth no more than tuppence for every 10p dividend. No surprise then that civil servants thought "pension schemes should be able to cope with the change" and that, in many cases, employers would make good the shortfall.

The fact of the matter is that governments have squeezed pension funds over the years - in 1986/7 Nigel Lawson capped surpluses in pension funds by imposing a special tax on funds over and above those needed to keep the fund solvent. Norman Lamont later took the action mentioned above.

Brown's move in 1997 was estimated at the time to cost the pension funds £3 billion a year. Ten years later those who are blaming the changes in pension funds on the budget in that year say that it is £5 billion. Whether £3 billion or £5 billion, that sort of some can be, and often is, made or lost by those finance houses administering pension funds [in one week's trading.

So how much was the impact of the changes announced in the 1997 budget the key to our pensions' decline? Let's look at other contributory factors:

The "pension holiday" that many firms took by holding off paying into their pension funds during the stock market's bull run.

We are all living longer so will be drawing more from the funds than ever before.

Interest rates have fallen, so our schemes are no longer earning as much.

Stock markets throughout the world "readjusted downwards", led mainly by the discovery that dotcoms were not the untouchable road to riches that many thought them to be.

Post-Maxwell the rules of the game changed and the special solvency requirements imposed on pension funds required greater empoyers' contributions than had been the case before.

Some employers were very quick to seize an excuse to change their funds from final salary schemes to money purchase schemes because while the fund - and therefore the employer - takes the risk with the former, the investor - the employee - takes all the risk with the latter.

Putting these factors in order of importance wld be partially subjective, though I suspect that no pensions professional would argue with longer living pensioners and lower returns on investments being the main two causes. What is certain is that the budgetary action taken ten years ago, while unhelpful to the funds, was a minor factor. Estimates of the cost to pension funds over the decade range from £30 billion to £50 billion. From the stock market fall in January 2000 to date pension funds' assets have fallen by £250 billion.

The resurrection of the actions taken in the 1997 budget, the timing of which to coincide with a change in the Labour party's leadership and Murdoch's apparent change back as to which party he supports, is hardly coincidental, is great for the cut and thrust of daily politics but as a fiscal issue it is of minor importance.

As I read elsewhere, the major influences on the pension funds are all global forces and to keep harping on about the loss of a solitary tax break is like a passenger on the Titanic getting miffed about losing a card game: there are rather bigger issues to worry about.
 
I take on board all you say about influences caused by people living longer etc. low interest rates and the stockmarket but what about those poor pensioners whose schemes have been wound up and have left many of the employee's destitute or having to return to work just to make ends meet. Surely, this government has an obligation to pay these pensioners some form of compensation immediately.

I know it is a different side of the pension shortfall argument but the fact that so many elderly people had pension schemes collapse means that there will possibly be more and more of these cases being brought to court. These elderly people have a strong voice, and lets hope some of them use it come the next General Election.


Courtesy of Saga Magazine online
Government loses pensions case
The Government has suffered a major defeat in the High Court over its refusal to pay full compensation to tens of thousands of people whose pension scheme has collapsed, writes Paul Lewis

Mr Justice Bean ruled that Ministers could not simply reject the findings of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham that the Government had been guilty of maladministration. And he ordered Secretary of State for Pensions John Hutton to reconsider his rejection of her recommendation that he should look at ways to restore in full the pensions of those who had lost out.

Saga Director Tim Bull said: “This is an historic day. The Court has ruled that the Government cannot simply dismiss with impunity the findings of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Common sense and common decency have triumphed over injustice.”

The test case was brought by four of the estimated 125,000 people who have lost all or part of their pensions following the winding up of their pension scheme, usually after the collapse of their employer.

In addition to upholding their claim, the judge also ensured that their costs were met by the Government – and gave the Government leave to appeal further on condition it met those costs too.

Mr Justice Bean upheld the finding by Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham that there had been maladministration and that Government information about the safety of company pensions was “sometimes inaccurate, often incomplete, largely inconsistent, and therefore potentially misleading” and in a direct comment on John Hutton said that “no reasonable Secretary of State could rationally disagree with that view.”

He particularly criticised one Government leaflet which “makes no mention of the risks to…pension rights should a scheme be wound up with insufficient funds to meet all of its liabilities.”

The judgement comes just two weeks after a petition with 12,000 signatures of Saga members was presented by Saga Magazine editor Emma Soames to Pensions Minister James Purnell demanding compensation. Saga’s Tim Bull reiterated that today.

“The Government must now act urgently to put in place an effective compensation package to give the victims financial security and peace of mind.

“Our customers and readers have spoken with a powerful voice – the court has ruled. The Government can no longer afford to ignore the strength of opinion.”

Despite the judge’s strong criticism of the Government he warned that the Secretary of State might reconsider compensation as ordered but still come up with the same answer “the result may be the same but it will not necessarily be the same”.

So despite this victory the 125,000 pension victims face further uncertainty.

Commenting on the judgement John Hutton told the BBC: “We have not yet decided the grounds of appeal and have to discuss the matter with our lawyers and give proper consideration to the implications of this ruling. We do recognise that some people have lost out significantly.

“That is why we have put nearly £2.5 billion into a Financial Assistance Scheme to provide support for those close to retirement. We have every sympathy with these people who have lost money.”

A spokesman later confirmed that at today’s prices the cost of the FAS was in fact £783 million, spread over 50 to 60 years.

Dr Ros Altmann, the former pensions adviser to No 10 who has campaigned tirelessly for the pensions theft victims, saluted "a wonderful victory" but promised that the fight for full compensation would continue.

"So far, the FAS has been little more than political spin, designed to pretend it is providing help, when in reality it has failed to do so," said Dr Altmann. "Thousands of people are struggling without their pensions, tens of thousands have lost future pensions and yet just a few hundred people have had a penny of this 'assistance'.

"The Government’s behaviour all along has been shameful and heartless. It has focused all its efforts on denying its role in this affair, rather than owning up to its mistakes and organising a proper rescue."

* What do you think about the High Court ruling in favour of the pensions' justice campaigners? Have your say now on our messageboards
 
Brian - nothing else needs to be said on that issue.

Someone remind me which government was it that sought to promote private pensions and contract out of SERPs leading to an enormous pensions mis-selling scandal ?

The real reason behind all this desperate recent propaganda , ten years on is an unholy coalition of Blairites , Tories and embittered old civil servants - all worried about Brown becoming PM .
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Apr 3 2007, 03:31 PM
I take on board all you say about influences caused by people living longer etc. low interest rates and the stockmarket but what about those poor pensioners whose schemes have been wound up and have left many of the employee's destitute or having to return to work just to make ends meet?
Kathy - you are now writing about a totally different matter! To consider the two issues together is a bit like bringing Sven Goran Ericsson into a discussion on the failings of the England cricket team.

As an ex-employer and pension fund trustee I agree with the findings of Ombudsman Ann Abraham and I hope , and believe that they should, that the government will change its decision and compensate those who have lost out on their pensions because of the failure of the companies hat employed them.

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with your first posting. This case is about government advice to people to join their companies' pension funds without menton of the possibiliy that things could go wrong. The main thing that could go wrong, and did in the case of the vast majority of the 125,000 people mentioned in the Saga magazine story, was for companies to go into liquidation or administration with fully funded pension schemes but with no further payments made into those schemes after the closure of the business.

I trust that the government will now act within the spirit of Mr justice Bean's ruling.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Apr 3 2007, 04:01 PM
Kathy - you are now writing about a totally different matter! To consider the two issues together is a bit like bringing Sven Goran Ericsson into a discussion on the failings of the England cricket team.

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with your first posting.
Brian, I know it's a different subject matter BUT it still relates to Pensions and the current government so I thought I would just add abit more into the discussion pot.
I am sure you realise that threads often diversify - especially on this forum!

In my limited experience of private pensions, trustees often act on behalf of the " the company" and not always in the best interest of the employees which I am sure was not so in your case.
 
Originally posted by Kathy+Apr 3 2007, 05:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kathy @ Apr 3 2007, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Ardross@Apr 3 2007, 02:40 PM
Brian - nothing else needs to be said on that issue.

So why did you then? :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Well it is quite simple . Brian has carefully explained the facts of the case . I have tried to explain why it has been blown up out of all proportion now .
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Apr 3 2007, 05:46 PM
In my limited experience of private pensions, trustees often act on behalf of the " the company" and not always in the best interest of the employees.
Well, firstly it's not the employees whose interests they should safeguard, it's the members of the scheme. Some of the employees will be members, some won't. Some members will be employees, some won't. Those that aren't will be pensioners receiving payment or ex-employees who have postponed pension rights, payable when they reach pensionable age, or when they opt to take an early pension.

If you know trustees who have represented the employer's interests rather than those of the members of the scheme then they have failed in their duty and are in breach of their trust. This is a serious matter and there is a set path of complaint, which, if not dealt wth satisfactorily, will end with the Pensions Ombudsman. If you need advice on how to pursue such a complaint I can help.
 
Still pension related, if it's ok to post this article on the same thread, Brian. Many private sector companies may have closed their final salary pensions to new recruits or may have asked for higher premiums, but in the public sector, it looks as if there will be some winners and some losers. You read all these articles on pensions, and you just don't know what to believe do you! :)

Civil servants agree to forfeit final salary pensions

· Change promises extra benefits for lower paid
· Public sector schemes hit £960bn deficit last year

Phillip Inman
Tuesday January 9, 2007
The Guardian


New recruits to the civil service will be denied a final salary pension under a ground-breaking agreement due to be announced today.
The government will put forward proposals for a revamped scheme that it claims will protect taxpayers from dramatic rises in costs while ensuring the retirement incomes of staff on lower salaries are improved. The scheme, which was agreed with union officials, will allow 500,000 existing staff to retain their final salary pensions.

Ministers are expected to hail the move as a significant step in capping the rising costs of public sector pensions. But the scheme is expected to send ripples of unease through Whitehall, where staff have jealously guarded their gold-plated retirement schemes. Some staff, especially those who are promoted to higher salaries late in their careers, could lose out.
Workers are also concerned at what they believe is a desire in No 10 to renege on promises made to public sector unions before the 2005 election that their pensions were safe.

Cabinet office minister Pat McFadden is understood to be keen that further increases in life expectancy are met by rises in staff pension contributions. Yesterday union officials said their understanding of the agreement was that any predictions of rising costs would merely be a trigger for further negotiations.

Many in the pensions industry have pointed to the rising costs of public sector retirement schemes as a significant factor in the pensions crisis. Last year the public sector pension deficit jumped almost a third to £960bn, according to pension consultants Watson Wyatt. The figure was more than 80% higher than official government estimates and amounted to £40,000 for each UK household.

Negotiations last year with teachers and NHS unions resulted in both groups retaining their final salary pensions.

In the private sector most guaranteed final salary schemes have closed to new members and in many cases existing staff have been asked for higher contributions.

The Conservative pensions spokesman, Phillip Hammond, has asked the government several times to make pension accounting in the public sector more transparent.

In November the Department of Health said it needed to delay publication of the accounts for the National Health staff pension. Yesterday DoH officials said the figures would be put before parliament by the end of the month, by which time they will be more than eight months late.

The new scheme for the civil service will determine staff retirement incomes based on their average salary over their period of employment. For many staff, especially those who reach senior levels in Whitehall departments, this will mean a cut in their expected retirement income. To compensate and make the deal "cost neutral" the government has agreed to speed up the rate at which staff accrue their pension rights.

Pensions experts said that for many staff on lower incomes this will prove to be a more generous scheme. Watson Wyatt partner Stephen Yeo said he believed the shift to a career-average scheme would prove beneficial for most staff. He said final salary schemes, though they provided high-flying staff with the best possible pension, had their drawbacks.

"A career-average scheme is guaranteed, just like a final salary scheme," he said, "but is a more modern way of looking at pension provision. It is more transparent and doesn't punish early leavers in the same way."
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Apr 3 2007, 01:03 PM
The resurrection of the actions taken in the 1997 budget, the timing of which to coincide with a change in the Labour party's leadership and Murdoch's apparent change back as to which party he supports, is hardly coincidental, is great for the cut and thrust of daily politics but as a fiscal issue it is of minor importance.

As I read elsewhere, the major influences on the pension funds are all global forces and to keep harping on about the loss of a solitary tax break is like a passenger on the Titanic getting miffed about losing a card game: there are rather bigger issues to worry about.

Well, lets wait and see if this is all of minor importance, Brian. It seems that this £50 billion pension black hole may still be the undoing of Gordon Brown and his crooked government. Bearing in mind, this "raid" was actually government policy and not due to any global economic conditions over which nobody has any control.

I am sure there will be more to come out about this in the coming weeks and months.

I have just found this article in The Independent that was published today, which makes rather interesting reading. Well, it did to me anyway :) and I do take on board that I am the one that needs lessons in economics and probably pensions as well. :brows:

Special adviser warned Brown's raid on pensions was 'crackers'
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 03 April 2007


Tony Blair was warned by his own special adviser on the economy that Gordon Brown's £5bn-a-year raid on pension funds was "crackers" and should be opposed. The row over the abolition of a tax break on pensions funds - which has raised doubts over Mr Brown's fitness to run the country - is likely to overshadow the launch of Labour's local government election campaign today by Mr Blair and Mr Brown.

Treasury papers released after MPs had gone on their Easter break showed the Chancellor's senior civil servants warned that his plan to abolish dividend tax credits for pension funds would cut the value of shares, threaten the closure of more final salary schemes and raise public spending.

However, it has now emerged that the Downing Street policy adviser on the economy, Derek Scott, also opposed the policy but, like the Treasury officials, his advice was cast aside.

He said last night that Mr Blair decided not to oppose the plan for Mr Brown's first Budget because he did not want a knock-down fight with the Chancellor.

"I thought it was a crackers thing to do," said Mr Scott, a private economics consultant. "The policy came out of the Treasury and I thought it was a mad thing to do and said so at the time. The idea that it helps investment by hitting pension funds is ludicrous.

"There was not a detailed discussion in a rational way between the Treasury and No. 10. It is something that we became aware of and I opposed it very strongly but Tony Blair didn't want to overrule Gordon. He didn't want to fight Gordon on it. I said it was not sensible thing to do but it was early on in the Parliament and Tony said that if Gordon wants to do this, I don't want to stand in his way."

He added: "We didn't get papers but some of the Treasury officials were grown-ups and were quite happy to talk to me."

Mr Brown faced fresh embarrassment yesterday when Adair Turner, the former head of the CBI, angrily contradicted claims by the Chancellor's allies that the CBI had lobbied for the abolition of dividend tax credits for pension funds and other companies.

Lord Turner was so furious he broke into his Easter holiday abroad to refute the claims by Ed Balls, Mr Brown's key adviser at the time and now one of the Treasury ministers.

"At no time whatsoever did the CBI support the policy of removing the dividend tax credit," Lord Turner said. "At no time in 1996 or 1997 was CBI support for a change in dividend tax credit rules expressed in any of these fashions. And when the change was introduced in the 1997 Budget, I wrote to the Chancellor expressing our disagreement."

Mr Scott supported the CBI version of events, saying: "It doesn't sound very likely. It wasn't a very desirable thing for the CBI."

Mr Balls insisted he was right, saying "senior CBI members pressed us on this issue in 1996, including at a meeting of the CBI President's Committee".

George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, said Mr Balls and Mr Brown "have been caught red-handed trying to claim support for one of the worst decisions ever made by a British Chancellor." Michael Fallon, a Tory member of the Commons Treasury select committee, said it was "10 times worse than Black Wednesday" under the Tories when Britain lost billions in a vain attempt to prop up sterling.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "It was a tough decision but the Prime Minister fully backed the Chancellor's decision."

It was also wrongly claimed that Mr Blair had forced Mr Brown to reduce the impact of the raid on pensions from £8bn to £5bn. Mr Scott said the reports confused the abolition of the tax break on pension funds with the £5bn windfall profits tax on the privatised utilities that the Chancellor also made in his first Budget.

The main players

* The Unknown Senior Civil Servant who warned Gordon Brown his raid on pension funds would hit. The papers released under the Freedom of Information Act do not identify the person but the permanent secretary then was Terry Burns. He was moved out a year later with a peerage and advised the Government on its fox-hunting ban.

* Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's chief economic adviser. He was credited with the phrase, "neoclassical endogenous growth theory", which led to his boss being ridiculed by Michael Heseltine, saying "It's not Brown, it's Balls."

* Geoffrey Robinson, a former Treasury minister, a key member of the Brown circle, owns a flat in Park Lane where the Brown camp did much of their planning for the 1997 Budget. In his autobiography, he reveals they expected the raid on pensions would be "explosive" and confirms that the CBI were supportive of wider corporate tax reforms.

* Derek Scott was the economic adviser to Tony Blair from 1997 to 2003. His job was to alert Blair to Treasury manoeuvres but the Brown camp tried to keep him out of the loop.

* Adair Turner, the former director-general of the CBI, was given a peerage and was recruited by Mr Brown for a major pension review but was regarded as closer to No 10 than No 11.
The controversial tax credits

* The Chancellor abolished dividend tax credits on pension funds in 1997 to raise money.

Before the Budget, an 8p net dividend would have carried a 2p tax credit, giving a 10p gross dividend. By abolishing the tax credit, the yield for institutional funds across the entire market fell by 20 per cent. Few people outside the City understood the change and hardly any MPs protested. But Whitehall papers produced under Freedom of Information show that Mr Brown was warned by his officials that there would be dire consequences.

They warned it would wipe £50bn off the value of funds, shares could drop by up to 20 per cent and public sector pensions would need topping up.

It is claimed hundreds of thousands of people are worse off. Among those likely to escape the worst are MPs, whosepensions were safeguarded against a drop in value at the taxpayers' expense.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Apr 3 2007, 04:53 PM
Excellent post, Brian.
At least you don't have to worry, PDJ. I think your final salary pension is currently protected under this Labour government.

I think all of us currently working in the private sector need to get jobs in the public sector if we don't want to work until we are 70 years old! Hopefully, any alternative government will be able to even things out a bit, or it just stinks of a them and us situation where pensions are concerned. Or is it just me that thinks that? shrug::
 
Your salary is protected PDJ, or your final salary pension, PDJ, or both? I know Brian is a bit of a stickler for the correct wording, so best we clarify which one(s) you mean to save any confusion. :)
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Apr 3 2007, 09:29 PM
I know Brian is a bit of a stickler for the correct wording
The area of pensions is one where definitions are highly important. I am quite happy to debate the issue, to supply factual information where here is little of it and to offer assistance if it is required. I choose to ignore snide remarks.
 
No, I meant it in an informative way, Brian. You corrected me when I just said employees, when in fact I should have said employees who are part of a pension scheme. Clearly not all employees of companies are members of say a final salary schemes, so it was clearly important that you corrected me on that point. I am in turn just asking PDJ if it is just his salary that is protected by this government or his pension or both. It wasn't met to be snide just wanted the facts to be clear as I know you do tend to be quite pedantic on these issues.
 
There have been far more balanced articles about the issue in the FT in the past week than the dross you have been posting, Kathy.

Unlike Brian, I am no pension expert (although I am learning fast); however it is becoming clear to me that although Brown hasn't covered himself with glory on this issue, it has been blown out of proportion by people with axes to grind.

Kathy, the fact that you have been criticising Brown for the budget the other week with (to me) points that made little economic sense makes you seem like a nitpicker with a political agenda.

Owing to my line of work, I look at a raft of economic data every day, I discuss these with a lot of well-respected economists and traders on a weekly basis. It is always obvious when people are either politically motivated (rare in my workplace) or ill-informed.
 
Firstly, I put the thread(s) up on this forum for people to discuss subject matter that is quite politically hot at the moment.

I really don't mind whether people think I am ill informed or whether they think I have a policitical agenda. I have never hidden the fact I hate this present government and everything they stand for. The difference is, I am happy to raise the subject, offer different opinions given by people far better versed in politics than I am, and yet all I get in response is mainly those that may just have have a vested interest in this government staying in power. I may be wrong. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. All I am looking for is a discussion, so that hopefully I can learn and so can others on this forum if they read this and possibly contribute.

It's a forum, so discuss!
 
Media rants at Chancellors are hardly new. I can't think of any one in the past who wasn't lambasted for being a 'thief' of something. They're always 'raiding' this, 'plundering' that, or 'scalping' the other. Drinkers, cigarette smokers and vehicle owners are traditionally the easiest targets with taxation 'too much', while the issues of pensions, working mums, non-working mums, and 'the future of our country' (children's allowances) are always criticised as 'not enough'.

It's perhaps not the tightest analogy, but Thatcher's urging of Councils to flog off their housing units to tenants bore a result a little along the lines of Brown urging employees to take up private pension schemes to try to guarantee themselves a solid retirement income, and not rely on the longevity of their employer. Sensible thinking in both cases, you would imagine, except that the former led to some seriously bad municipal decisions with the knock-on of not having enough housing, and the latter led to some very dodgy pension schemes being foisted onto untutored workers. In neither case was there an assumption of stupidity on behalf of the Councils or the pension sellers/buyers, but you know that if there had been, with due dire warnings and caveats, there would have been cries of 'Nanny State!'.
 
Back
Top