Georgie boy is after your pension money!

[Tashyboy]

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.

Mr Blair and Brown have raided a lot from the pot but it was set up by missis T, John Major and gang. And yes you are more than correct that it was underwritten by the tax payer. However this is the bit that upsets me and 200,000 others. If they had not taken Billions out of the fund then there would be no liabilities for Joe public because it would be worth billions more than the 11billionish it is currently valued at. for the record. I believe the taxpayer paid 40 million about five years ago ( I do stand corrected on date and figure) when there was a shortfall. However if they had not taken billions there would of been no shortfall.
I have often hoped that I am the last miner in The UK dragging out of the MPS, I would be on about £500,000 per week. What will happen to the fund when the last miner dies. Ave a feeling Georgie boy has already give that some thought.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

In any event to refer to the OP the change that is being considered is to restrict tax-relief to standard rate i.e. 20% so it is Higher Rate Tax-payers that will be affected rather than all who contribute towards their pension.

 

[delc]

In any event to refer to the OP the change that is being considered is to restrict tax-relief to standard rate i.e. 20% so it is Higher Rate Tax-payers that will be affected rather than all who contribute towards their pension.

But assuming that you have a range of income groups paying into a pension fund, the higher income groups contribute more (although they admittedly get more back). If they decide that it's not worthwhile to contribute, the whole pension fund will suffer.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

But assuming that you have a range of income groups paying into a pension fund, the higher income groups contribute more (although they admittedly get more back). If they decide that it's not worthwhile to contribute, the whole pension fund will suffer.

If it is a Final Salary scheme the higher rate tax paying employees would be ill advised not to join as they would lose the benefit of the far greater employer contributions but then they are unlikely to be offered membership these days.

If it is a Money Purchase scheme then their not joining would have zero effect upon other employees.

 

[delc]

If it is a Final Salary scheme the higher rate tax paying employees would be ill advised not to join as they would lose the benefit of the far greater employer contributions but then they are unlikely to be offered membership these days.

If it is a Money Purchase scheme then their not joining would have zero effect upon other employees.

One of the problems I see is that you are being offered a pig in a poke. Unlike the final salary schemes, you have no guarantee about what you will get back, and how it will meet your income needs in retirement. The one company that did offer guarantees, Equitable Life, got into trouble after Gordon Brown changed the tax regime and effectively went bankrupt. Unfortunately I had an AVC with them, and although I am getting a tiny income from them, it's a fraction of what I was expecting!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

One of the problems I see is that you are being offered a pig in a poke. Unlike the final salary schemes, you have no guarantee about what you will get back, and how it will meet your income needs in retirement. The one company that did offer guarantees, Equitable Life, got into trouble after Gordon Brown changed the tax regime and effectively went bankrupt. Unfortunately I had an AVC with them, and although I am getting a tiny income from them, it's a fraction of what I was expecting!

Blimey you really don't like Gordon Brown do you.

To blame him for the failure of Equitable Life is a new one. Their problems arose from not being able to meet the costs of guaranteed annuity rates. Many other life assurance companies had offered similar guarantees but ceased taking new business on that basis as well as being better resourced for meeting their liabilities.

As for Money Purchase v Final Salary you are correct that there is less certainty with the former but then the latter never offered a guarantee, only a promise.

The vast majority of employees in the private sector never had the luxury of a Final Salary scheme in any event.

 

[delc]

Blimey you really don't like Gordon Brown do you.

To blame him for the failure of Equitable Life is a new one. Their problems arose from not being able to meet the costs of guaranteed annuity rates. Many other life assurance companies had offered similar guarantees but ceased taking new business on that basis as well as being better resourced for meeting their liabilities.

As for Money Purchase v Final Salary you are correct that there is less certainty with the former but then the latter never offered a guarantee, only a promise.

The vast majority of employees in the private sector never had the luxury of a Final Salary scheme in any event.

There was a time when every decent company offered a final salary pension scheme! The only time I wasn't in one was when I was temping for an Agency. Even that added to my SERPS pension, which is also being done away with by George Osborne!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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?

Actually I'd just like someone to direct me to where in the Tory Party 2015 GE manifesto this great idea was mentioned; and that for scrapping student grants; and that for scrapping free tuition fees to student nurses and midwives. I suppose these great ideas are just to balance the scales with those promises in the manifesto that the government is failing to deliver. Ach well. Looking forward to another 15yrs of them and will also be looking forward to hearing my MP Jeremy Hunt (yes him) explain this great pension wheeze to his very responsible hard-working and striving pension-building constituents of West Surrey.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

There was a time when every decent company offered a final salary pension scheme! The only time I wasn't in one was when I was temping for an Agency. Even that added to my SERPS pension, which is also being done away with by George Osborne!

No there was not.

Small companies have rarely been able to do so and of those that did many subsequently found the increased costs were at least partially responsible for their collapse.

You seem to be like many who worked for large(r) companies and in the public sector in having little understanding of the situation of the majority of the work-force who are employed by small(er) companies.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

Oh I most certainly would as it would mean I earned one heck of a lot more than I currently do - £750,000 is a HUGE pension pot.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Actually I'd just like someone to direct me to where in the Tory Party 2015 GE manifesto this great idea was mentioned; and that for scrapping student grants; and that for scrapping free tuition fees to student nurses and midwives. I suppose these great ideas are just to balance the scales with those promises in the manifesto that the government is failing to deliver. Ach well. Looking forward to another 15yrs of them and will also be looking forward to hearing my MP Jeremy Hunt (yes him) explain this great pension wheeze to his very responsible hard-working and striving pension-building constituents of West Surrey.

This proposal was originally suggested by, amongst others, Vince Cable during the coalition. Certainly not a new idea.

In any event I would have thought that you of all people would be in favour of "flat rate" relief for all.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

Both Georgie Boy and Call me Dave are guilty of major pig-in-a-pokery. A pair of shysters.

 

[delc]

No there was not.

Small companies have rarely been able to do so and of those that did many subsequently found the increased costs were at least partially responsible for their collapse.

You seem to be like many who worked for large(r) companies and in the public sector in having little understanding of the situation of the majority of the work-force who are employed by small(er) companies.

So what do you want to happen to people when they get too old to work? Send them to a Victorian Workhouse, euthanasia, begging on the streets? Seem like good Tory ideals to me!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This proposal was originally suggested by, amongst others, Vince Cable during the coalition. Certainly not a new idea.

i must go read the Tory manifesto then as I never heard much talk of it during the GE campaign.

 

[richart]

One of the problems I see is that you are being offered a pig in a poke. Unlike the final salary schemes, you have no guarantee about what you will get back, and how it will meet your income needs in retirement. The one company that did offer guarantees, Equitable Life, got into trouble after Gordon Brown changed the tax regime and effectively went bankrupt. Unfortunately I had an AVC with them, and although I am getting a tiny income from them, it's a fraction of what I was expecting!

Equitable life were certainly not the only company that offered guaranteed annuities. Most companies stoped them in the early to mid 80's, though the likes of Scottish equitable offered them right up to the introduction of the new Personal Pensions in 1988. Before Personal Pensions we had Retirement Annuity Plans .

I had a lot of clients with Guaranteed Annuity rates attached to their R.A Plans, and they are all paying out nicely. Investors that went to Equitable Life, which was a direct sales company, were the ones that suffered. They were offering ridiculous rates to attract business. A good rule of investing, if it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly is. I doubt many Independent Financial Advisors recommend Equitable Life to their clients.

Equitable Life brought about their own downfall.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

So what do you want to happen to people when they get too old to work? Send them to a Victorian Workhouse, euthanasia, begging on the streets? Seem like good Tory ideals to me!

Where on Earth have I suggested that?

All I have stated is that Final Salary schemes had become unaffordable and it is for all of us, employees, employers and the State to ensure that adequate affordable provision is made for retirement which is likely to be longer for us all compared with previous generations.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

i must go read the Tory manifesto then as I never heard much talk of it during the GE campaign.

Which government in history has ever included every possible and relatively modest change to Income Tax legislation in their pre-election manifesto.

I havelived through many governments and cannot recall one but perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Which government in history has ever included every possible and relatively modest change to Income Tax legislation in their pre-election manifesto.

I havelived through many governments and cannot recall one but perhaps you can enlighten me.

Quite - but they haven't hung about very long so must have had it planned on the back of their fag packet - just didn't want to tell us. But on the other hand they use the fact that something may have been in the manifesto as justification why they must implement it despite protestations that suggest it might be foolish or detrimental (see Tax Credits).

 

[evahakool]

Oh I most certainly would as it would mean I earned one heck of a lot more than I currently do - £750,000 is a HUGE pension pot.

£750,000 is a huge pension pot, thats why IMO the tax relief system is unfair, if you are a top earner you could amass this amount with the government putting a lot in,,but before I got to that stage my money would be invested elsewhere.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Quite - but they haven't hung about very long so must have had it planned on the back of their fag packet - just didn't want to tell us. But on the other hand they use the fact that something may have been in the manifesto as justification why they must implement it despite protestations that suggest it might be foolish or detrimental (see Tax Credits).

And your point is?

Oh! I forgot you never make a point, merely criticise the Government at every opportunity whilst never offering any practical solutions to the problem.