Georgie boy is after your pension money!

[delc]

For those who don't know the history of pensions, final salary pensions were perfectly affordable until Gordon Brown stopped pension fund managers from claiming back the tax paid on dividend income. Now George Osborne (Gordon Brown Mark II?) wants to restrict or stop the tax relief you get on your personal payments into your pension fund. This probably means for many people, once you have paid the management fees, etc, that your pension pot will be worth less than you paid into it. Also he want's pension pots to be restricted to £750,000, which sounds a lot, but probably won't give you that much of an income in retirement at today's annuity rates. Even when we did have final salary pensions, retirement generally meant a significant reduction in income, and this can only get worse in future. Possibly, even with workplace pensions, many people will never be able to afford to retire!

How does this affect golf? Well about 50% of my club's members are retired on reasonably comfortable pensions, and can afford golf club membership as well as eating and other normal living costs. However, if finances are that tight, then golf club membership becomes a luxury that you can't afford!

Principle of pensions: You and your employer pay a small percentage of your salary into a pension fund to fund your future retirement. With compound interest and sensible investment, you should be able to build up a reasonable sum of money. Then you are either paid an agreed pension based on years of service, or use the accumulated sum of money to buy an annuity. Now, if you wish, you can withdraw the entire sum and blow it on a Rolls Royce, or whatever, and make do without a pension, but you will pay tax at 40% on part of this lump sum. Traditionally, Governments have encouraged people to be prudent and save for their retirement by giving tax incentives, but this principle now seems to have been put aside by various Chancellors of the Exchequer who are after your money for their nefarious schemes!

P.S. What is proposed is a form of double taxation. You payments into a pension will come out of your taxed income, and you will also (probably) pay income tax on your pension when you get it!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Could you let me know approximately which number post in this thread it will be before the debate descends into blaming the immigrants abusing the NHS and/or feckless layabouts abusing the overly generous welfare system, meaning we need more money from the pension schemes to pay for them?

 

[chrisd]

At the moment my pension provider (?) won't let me have any of my 25% tax free money! The financial sector are just arses

 

[delc]

Could you let me know approximately which number thread it will be before the debate descends into blaming the immigrants abusing the NHS, meaning we need more money from the pension schemes to pay for them?

I think that George Osborne is raiding our pension funds in an attempt to pay off our National Debt. Same as Gordon Brown trying to pay for his Socialist Agenda, and the previous Conservative Government allowing companies to take 'pension holidays' so that they made more profit and paid more Corporation Tax. Governments seem to be no better than the late Robert Maxwell when it comes to raiding pension funds. Personally I believe that pension funds should be made immune from political interference and overseen by some sort of independent trustee body.

This has nothing to do with immigrants!

 

[delc]

At the moment my pension provider (?) won't let me have any of my 25% tax free money! The financial sector are just arses

The financial sector has also been guilty of raiding pension funds by the ridiculously high management fees they charge for not doing very much at all. I believe that somebody once, as an experiment, allowed a group of Chimpanzees to select which investments to go for (more or less at random), and they actually did better than the pension fund managers! :mmm:

 

[Deleted member 18588]

The financial sector has also been guilty of raiding pension funds by the ridiculously high management fees they charge for not doing very much at all. I believe that somebody once, as an experiment, allowed a group of Chimpanzees to select which investments to go for (more or less at random), and they actually did better than the pension fund managers! :mmm:

Well the chimpanzee story is a complete myth although it is true that passive fund management (i.e. tracker funds) have, in many cases, outperformed actively managed funds.

Management charges have for several years now been capped and regulated.

Oh! and Final Salary schemes were fast becoming unaffordable due to improved mortality rates and falling yields before Gordon Brown's ACT changes.

But then you have never previously allowed the facts to get in the way of a good old-fashioned prejudice and pre-conception.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Could you let me know approximately which number post in this thread it will be before the debate descends into blaming the immigrants abusing the NHS and/or feckless layabouts abusing the overly generous welfare system, meaning we need more money from the pension schemes to pay for them?

You forgot SNP BAD

 

[delc]

Well the chimpanzee story is a complete myth although it is true that passive fund management (i.e. tracker funds) have, in many cases, outperformed actively managed funds.

Management charges have for several years now been capped and regulated.

Oh! and Final Salary schemes were fast becoming unaffordable due to improved mortality rates and falling yields before Gordon Brown's ACT changes.

But then you have never previously allowed the facts to get in the way of a good old-fashioned prejudice and pre-conception.

In the 1990's, many pension funds were (allegedly) greatly in surplus. That is they had more than enough money to meet their commitments. In order to reduce these supposed surpluses, the then Conservative Government allowed companies, although not their employees, to take 'pension holidays', which meant that they made more profit and paid more in Corporation Tax. I believe that the company I worked for payed nothing into our pension fund for something like 10 years! In essence, without political interference and changes to taxation, final salary pensions were easily affordable, even if people are living longer. By the way, as a member of a final salary pension scheme and a Union rep, I always took a keen interest in pension matters, and I was also married to a Pensions Administrator, so I do know what I am talking about!

 

[evahakool]

I kind of like the idea of restricting tax relief on payments into a personal pension,it seams to me the more money you have the more you can put away in a pension,and getting money off the government that could be better spent elsewhere.

I like a idea of a sliding scale where it could stay the same as is for the average wage earners, but someone in the 100k range shouldn't get any relief, it's just wrong that someone can put 20/30k into a pension fund and get so much tax relief.

I personally wouldn't want any more than £750,000 in a pension fund, to many variables nowdays and much better options for your money.

 

[Tashyboy]

Cheers Delc, I wanted a quiet night in, chilled out in front of telly and you write this.

If you think that Delc is talking out of his jacksy, try to find out what successive governments have done to the Miners pension scheme aka MPS. They have taken billions out of the fund, and I mean billions.
When the mining industry went privatised, the government ( Tory ) promised to pay any shortfall that may occur if the value of the fund could not meet payments. For that they wanted 50% of All profits every year. The Unions jumped at the chance. Why, because the Government had promised it did not have an agenda to close all the pits in the UK and that every miner will work til they are 59 and drop dead five years later on a full pension. It was a no brainer.
Guess what, there now no pits left. Miners are taking reduced pensions early, and the government are making Billions. Last year 2,500 miners died, that's less to pay out and more surplus for Captain bloodsucker. That short ass, pig poking Osborne is telling everyone how important pensions are but picking your pocket at the same time.
Thing is about us old uns is that there is an average age of when we die, miners are well under that average and there quality of retirement is being robbed

If he can rob us, then no one is safe . Cheers Delc, rant over.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

In the 1990's, many pension funds were (allegedly) greatly in surplus. That is they had more than enough money to meet their commitments. In order to reduce these supposed surpluses, the then Conservative Government allowed companies, although not their employees, to take 'pension holidays', which meant that they made more profit and paid more in Corporation Tax. I believe that the company I worked for payed nothing into our pension fund for something like 10 years! In essence, without political interference and changes to taxation, final salary pensions were easily affordable, even if people are living longer. By the way, as a member of a final salary pension scheme and a Union rep, I always took a keen interest in pension matters, and I was also married to a Pensions Administrator, so I do know what I am talking about!

Well I would suggest that you are not as well informed as you like to think.

You have overlooked the changes to revaluation of benefits and improved provision for scheme leavers, the fall in gilt yields with the resultant increase in the cost of providing the actual pension and several other changes in pension and social security legislation.

Life expectancy for a 65 year old male increased by 40% from 1980 to 2014. Have you any idea what effect that increase has had onfunding rates.

I agree employers' contribution holidays were often not a good idea. However, to suggest that FS schemes would still be affordable in the private sector is to ignore the facts and I am sure you are never guilty of that

 

[Hacker Khan]

Cheers Delc, I wanted a quiet night in, chilled out in front of telly and you write this.

If you think that Delc is talking out of his jacksy, try to find out what successive governments have done to the Miners pension scheme aka MPS. They have taken billions out of the fund, and I mean billions.
When the mining industry went privatised, the government ( Tory ) promised to pay any shortfall that may occur if the value of the fund could not meet payments. For that they wanted 50% of All profits every year. The Unions jumped at the chance. Why, because the Government had promised it did not have an agenda to close all the pits in the UK and that every miner will work til they are 59 and drop dead five years later on a full pension. It was a no brainer.
Guess what, there now no pits left. Miners are taking reduced pensions early, and the government are making Billions. Last year 2,500 miners died, that's less to pay out and more surplus for Captain bloodsucker. That short ass, pig poking Osborne is telling everyone how important pensions are but picking your pocket at the same time.
Thing is about us old uns is that there is an average age of when we die, miners are well under that average and there quality of retirement is being robbed

If he can rob us, then no one is safe . Cheers Delc, rant over.

That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.

 

[delc]

Well I would suggest that you are not as well informed as you like to think.

You have overlooked the changes to revaluation of benefits and improved provision for scheme leavers, the fall in gilt yields with the resultant increase in the cost of providing the actual pension and several other changes in pension and social security legislation.

Life expectancy for a 65 year old male increased by 40% from 1980 to 2014. Have you any idea what effect that increase has had onfunding rates.

I agree employers' contribution holidays were often not a good idea. However, to suggest that FS schemes would still be affordable in the private sector is to ignore the facts and I am sure you are never guilty of that

In the scheme I was in, we the employees paid 6% of our salary into the pension scheme, tax deductible, but the employers were supposed to pay something like 15%. Do you agree that not paying that for 10 years represented an awful lot of money? Could you define exactly what living 40% longer means? I assume you mean after the age of 60 or 65?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.

Actually the biggest error is to overlook the fact that the raid on the profits generated by the MPS equity investments was largely undertaken by the Blair/Brown governments.

This is coupled with the Scheme's continued reliance upon equities at a stage when a comparable private sector scheme would have been required to invest in bonds.

Also it should be realised that since 1994 the Scheme's liabilities have been underwritten by the taxpayer.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

In the scheme I was in, we the employees paid 6% of our salary into the pension scheme, tax deductible, but the employers were supposed to pay something like 15%. Do you agree that not paying that for 10 years represented an awful lot of money? Could you define exactly what living 40% longer means? I assume you mean after the age of 60 or 65?

As I said contribution holidays were often not a good idea but then not all schemes enjoyed one.

In any event it still does not alter the fact that the liabilities upon schemes have increased to such an extent that they have become unaffordable.

The increase in life expectancy to which I referred is post 65, ergo pensions become payable for 40% longer.

 

[PIng]

P.S. What is proposed is a form of double taxation. You payments into a pension will come out of your taxed income, and you will also (probably) pay income tax on your pension when you get it!

In every job I've ever had, including being self-employed, the pension has been taken out before tax, therefore there is no double taxation.

 

[Tashyboy]

That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.

Nah there all at it, anyway why let the truth get in the way of a good story😁

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95zxtaKQBBc

 

[HomerJSimpson]

In every job I've ever had, including being self-employed, the pension has been taken out before tax, therefore there is no double taxation.

Agreed. A pre-tax deduction

 

[delc]

In every job I've ever had, including being self-employed, the pension has been taken out before tax, therefore there is no double taxation.

Up to now that has been true, at least in respect of employee contributions, but Georgie boy is trying to restrict this for higher rate tax payers, and maybe for everyone in the long run!

Pension funds are becoming like Ponzi schemes, where you are expected to pay in, but may get little or nothing back. You will probably be better off putting money under the mattress!