Trust me I'm a politician

[catgate]

It is good to know they are concerned about other people, and not solely themselves.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2177711,00.html

[Tankus]

I'm 43 .....AND MY FUTURE IS f***ED

[andsome]

They must think that we are all as stupid as they are. They are saying that this will possibly take place in 2012, or 13 or 14. Who the hell do they think they are legislating for a future government, no matter who it will be controlled by? This is like the old soviet five year plans, when we all knew that as far as things looked they would be in power for ever.

[Tankus]

we are

Blair was voted in

the pension theft has been spent ...It will never be undone ... regardless of who gets in

[catgate]

Who the hell do they think they are legislating for a future government, no matter who it will be controlled by?

Most of their "achievments", like new hospitals (that we can not afford to run), IT schemes (that do not work), wars (that we can not win) etc etc will have to be paid for by future generations. They have joined the buy now pay later society through their obsession with PFI and PPP schemes,m and a desire by Tony to leave a "legacy". That legacy will be unsupportable debt.

[Thos]

What a bunch you all are!

Years ago during a Tory administration, the link between pensions and earnings was broken in favour of a link between pensions and prices. I hope you all protested vigorously then. I certainly did within the avenues which were open to me.

Now after years of short- changing pensioners the Government proposes to restore the link. The cost is now enormous but at least it proposes to do it. And the initiative is greeted with the sort of bilious reception in the posts above.

Thos.

[Belatucadrus]

Now after years of short- changing pensioners the Government proposes to restore the link. The cost is now enormous.

Thos.

So after years of raiding the pension funds, they've spotted it's bad PR and have decided to stop. Good, about time.

We're supposed to congratulate them on this courageous and innovative move, of deciding not to rob blind one of the most vulnerable areas of society ? Not going to happen.

Beside with Blair out of the way, how long before Brown backtracks ? TBs legacy isn't going to be high on his priority list and he does love retroactive legislation.

[catgate]

What a bunch you all are!

Years ago during a Tory administration, the link between pensions and earnings was broken in favour of a link between pensions and prices. I hope you all protested vigorously then. I certainly did within the avenues which were open to me.

Now after years of short- changing pensioners the Government proposes to restore the link. The cost is now enormous but at least it proposes to do it. And the initiative is greeted with the sort of bilious reception in the posts above.

Thos.

Oh dear, Thos. The thing that stick out, and stinks, is the timing and the reason for this "change of heart". Had it not been for Tony's desperate need for a legacy, and Gordon's desire for power, this would not have happened. They can not afford it, monetarily. But if Blair is to out-do Maggy he has got to reintroduce the link. His whole strategy at present is based on "ruling" longer than Maggy, and leaving as a "good guy".

If you want to know when he will "step down" and hand over, just work out how much longer he has to go to surpass Maggy's length of tenure.

The whole matter of pensions is one of the biggest con trick in the book. It does not matter which party is in power it is not possible to create a pension system of any kind that is workable without sleight of hand.

[Thos]

Oh dear, Thos. The thing that stick out, and stinks, is the timing and the reason for this "change of heart". Had it not been for Tony's desperate need for a legacy, and Gordon's desire for power, this would not have happened.

Oh dear, catgate.

"Tony" doesn't need a legacy of increasing the retirement age which is what has fuelled this.

The timing is a result of the Turner report into pensions as it has become clear that the population is living longer and need funding to a greater extent than ever before. Successive Governments have put off grasping this nettle and the Turner report should make everyone face up to the realities.

Beside with Blair out of the way, how long before Brown backtracks ? TBs legacy isn't going to be high on his priority list and he does love retroactive legislation.

Who knows? Is that a reason for not welcoming the restoration of the link?

Thos.

[andsome]

I welcome a restoring of the link which should never have been broken in the first place. It was wrong of the Tories to break this link at the time. At lease I can see mistakes in ALL political parties, not just the Tories, as happens with die hard Labour supporters. What I have objected to is the fact that B'liar and Brown are planning IN ADVANCE for what a future administration should do. I ask again, who the hell do they think they are? It is NOT even clear that 2012 is the deadline, Brown has reserved the right to postpone the restoration for at least two years after this date. ALWAYS ASSUMING THAT AT THAT TIME HE HAS ANY SAY IN THE MATTER.

[Thos]

At lease I can see mistakes in ALL political parties, not just the Tories, as happens with die hard Labour supporters. What I have objected to is the fact that B'liar and Brown are planning IN ADVANCE for what a future administration should do. I ask again, who the hell do they think they are? It is NOT even clear that 2012 is the deadline, Brown has reserved the right to postpone the restoration for at least two years after this date. ALWAYS ASSUMING THAT AT THAT TIME HE HAS ANY SAY IN THE MATTER.

All governments plan ahead. You must know this. Their plans are subject to revision by any incoming administration. For example, rightly or wrongly, the present administration has commited itself to holding the Olympic Games in 2012. Margaret Thatcher, I think it was, committed support for building the Channel Tunnel. We would never had had a Motorway network if a certain Ernest Marples (I think it was) had not had the foresight to see well ahead and push his plans through. The Treasury allocates funds all the time for spending well ahead. No administration could do otherwise and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Thos.

[andsome]

At lease I can see mistakes in ALL political parties, not just the Tories, as happens with die hard Labour supporters. What I have objected to is the fact that B'liar and Brown are planning IN ADVANCE for what a future administration should do. I ask again, who the hell do they think they are? It is NOT even clear that 2012 is the deadline, Brown has reserved the right to postpone the restoration for at least two years after this date. ALWAYS ASSUMING THAT AT THAT TIME HE HAS ANY SAY IN THE MATTER.

All governments plan ahead. You must know this. Their plans are subject to revision by any incoming administration. For example, rightly or wrongly, the present administration has commited itself to holding the Olympic Games in 2012. Margaret Thatcher, I think it was, committed support for building the Channel Tunnel. We would never had had a Motorway network if a certain Ernest Marples (I think it was) had not had the foresight to see well ahead and push his plans through. The Treasury allocates funds all the time for spending well ahead. No administration could do otherwise and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Thos.

But why then are the pair of them acting as though they have given us the crown jewels, when in reality they have given us precisely nothing. All that we have is a vague promise that sometime we may or may not get something.

[catgate]

As I said earlier " It does not matter which party is in power it is not possible to create a pension system of any kind that is workable without sleight of hand." The pension that is paid out is not government money, it is money taken from the public under a variety of guises.

The big con is that 'the government can provide a pension for all and sundry, and that pension will be adequate'. It will not.

Suppose there were no state pension scheme and each individual had to provide his own pension by saving part of his income. Assuming no inflation and a working life of 45 years, with 15 years retirement, then the savings would have to be one third of income for those 45 years to provide a pension equivalent to average income over the 15 years prior to death. That pension would be equivalent to the individuals earnings at the age of about 43.

There is no way that this could be achieved unless the individual did not marry, did not have children and did not buy a house etc. and paid little or no tax.

When one looks at the real world, with taxation and inflation included, then the situation becomes even more impossible, because the purchasing power of the pound at the end of the 45 years will be a fraction of what it was at the begining of the 45 years and consequently far, far more than the third of income would have to be saved. I fact the purchasing power of the pound now is much less than 10% of what it was 45 years ago and that really fouls up the "compulsory additional savings for ones pension" idea that is currently being mooted.

Pension funds have been used by many companies and private individuals, but because these work on usury and have to provide lots of loot for the pension fund operators and their share holders, they are themselves a source of inflation, and are adding to the burden of inflation suffered by the savers.

The route round the pension problem, taken by successive governments, has been to rob Peter to pay Paul, and so people currently "in work" are taxed to pay all manner of things, one of which is current pensions.

Now I find it most distasteful that a chap down in Bognor Regis or a woman up in Aberdeen is having money take from him/her to pay some of my pension when, had I been allowed, in a sensibly run economy, I could have, and should have, made all my own pension arrangements. It is my responsibility, no one elses.

As it stands the number of people in work are being expected to contribute an ever increasing percentage of their income to provide pensions for the ever increasing number of people being discarded by industry and commerce, and the working until 68 idea is just a sop.

[deuces wild]

After reading this thread one can clearly see why the US declared it's independence from England.

[Thos]

But why then are the pair of them acting as though they have given us the crown jewels, when in reality they have given us precisely nothing. All that we have is a vague promise that sometime we may or may not get something.

As I said before, because Governments have to plan ahead, whether you like their plans or not.

Thos.

[Thos]

It is my responsibility, no one elses.

As it stands the number of people in work are being expected to contribute an ever increasing percentage of their income to provide pensions for the ever increasing number of people being discarded by industry and commerce, and the working until 68 idea is just a sop.

I would like to give a wise answer to you catgate, but I cannot to the totality of your argument. But I would add that their are many in society who cannot earn as well as those who will not. There are many, because of their physical or mental make up can only do so-called menial jobs. These have to be looked after by society and one of the ways is a universal state pension. Some people have plenty of money, much accumulated through family wealth and so the well off , in my view, should help the less well off. I think this is called taxation. None of this, I recognise, meets your arguments on the unaffordability of a national pension scheme but I hope it demonstrates why I believe we should at least try.

Thos.

[catgate]

I would like to give a wise answer to you catgate, but I cannot to the totality of your argument. But I would add that their are many in society who cannot earn as well as those who will not. There are many, because of their physical or mental make up can only do so-called menial jobs. These have to be looked after by society and one of the ways is a universal state pension.

Thos.

In the less well developed societies (that are referred to as the third world) those who cannot earn are looked after by family, granted not lavishly, but with a great deal more care and affection than those here in our civilised society. Those who will not earn suffer the consequenses. As far as those who can only do menial tasks due to hereditary matters they have to do menial tasks (just as those born with one shorter leg have to limp).

In our society the various governments have increasingly "usurped" those responsibilities that in reality belong to parents and family, as a means of 1) gaining more votes and brownie points, 2) gaining more control and 3) gaining more justification for digging deeper into the publics pocket.

In my own case, being the oldest child, I built a grannyflat onto our house ( yes with my own hands) to be able to look after our parents when they eventually needed it, so that they could have a comfortable old age, without any pension worries etc. My sister had a house large enough to similarly look after our mother's sister. In my way of thinking this is how it should be.

The responsibility for the well being of the family lies within the family and has nothing to do with the government. It is largely because govenments have virtually supplanted parents in just about every aspect of parent hood (with the exception of procreation...and Prezza and Blunket were trying to do it there) that social behaviour and morality has degenerated to its current levels.

Those who are without family or are without means of support through no fault of their own are a different matter and should be looked after by society, and were governments to be more carefull and honest with the money they extract from the public's pocket, there would be no problem with this.

[Thos]

In the less well developed societies (that are referred to as the third world) those who cannot earn are looked after by family, granted not lavishly, but with a great deal more care and affection than those here in our civilised society. Those who will not earn suffer the consequenses. As far as those who can only do menial tasks due to hereditary matters they have to do menial tasks (just as those born with one shorter leg have to limp).

In our society the various governments have increasingly "usurped" those responsibilities that in reality belong to parents and family, as a means of 1) gaining more votes and brownie points, 2) gaining more control and 3) gaining more justification for digging deeper into the publics pocket.

In my own case, being the oldest child, I built a grannyflat onto our house ( yes with my own hands) to be able to look after our parents when they eventually needed it, so that they could have a comfortable old age, without any pension worries etc. My sister had a house large enough to similarly look after our mother's sister. In my way of thinking this is how it should be.

Those who are without family or are without means of support through no fault of their own are a different matter and should be looked after by society, and were governments to be more carefull and honest with the money they extract from the public's pocket, there would be no problem with this.

I understand your point about the "third world" but the principal means of making a living there is agriculture where all the family have a part to play. This isn't so in the developed world. Even so, I know which "world" I would rather be a part of.

That isn't to say that I do not believe your admirable sentiments and actions relating to your own family and I hope you all live a long time to share the benefits.

Nevertheless, there is, in my view, a place for a state pension system topped up by personal savings either in a pension savings scheme or some other way.

This thread has developed into a more interesting one in my opinion, than looked likely with the opening posts.

Thos.

[andsome]

I fully agree that we are responsible for our own retirement. this why I am so B***** annoyed at Brown reducing the value of private pension plans. How dare he now expect people to provide for their own retirement, when it is patently obvious that he feels the need to tax people on these savings, to fund Labour follies.

[catgate]

That isn't to say that I do not believe your admirable sentiments and actions relating to your own family and I hope you all live a long time to share the benefits.

Father died in his 87th year about 20 years ago, preceded some 10 years previously by mother. How long before I follow them I do not know, but thanks for the wishes anyway :)

Nevertheless, there is, in my view, a place for a state pension system topped up by personal savings either in a pension savings scheme or some other way.

Thos.

The point about my ramblings was that there is no way that an adequate pension can be provided, either by the state or privately or a combination, due to the effect of inflation combined with the averice of all those other people who think that it is permissable to help themselves any any heap of money that they just happen to see "laying about". The govenment call it tax whilst the others call it commission and expenses. Of course I am excluding those people who operate these things from the normal body of the population, because those people, and similar, are extremely well catered for.

My view of an adequate pension is one which provides a standard of living where one is not dependant on the Graciousness of the government for winter fuel allowances, free TV licences, free bus passes etc. and where one is not wondering how much month there will be left at the end of the money.

[r4may]

QUOTE(catgate @ May 14 2006, 18:05)

My view of an adequate pension is one which provides a standard of living where one is not dependant on the Graciousness of the government for winter fuel allowances, free TV licences, free bus passes etc. and where one is not wondering how much month there will be left at the end of the money

Most pensioners worked for over 45 years and paid for their pensions during this time via a part of the NI payments. So to pay them a mere (approx) £84 per week is not really a good return on their investment in the NI. Especially when their council Tax is about £35 per week then there's the rest of the living costs all before you can eat/drink.

Brown screwed up the private pensions with his stealth taxes making these pensions minuscule and then taxes any income from them making it very difficult for anyone to have a decent standard of living unless they are an ex MP or fat cat whose snout has been in the trough.

Then if you are unfortunate enough to require care they force you use most of your savings, if you have any left, or sell any home you have to pay for the care.

Politicians of ALL Parties are to blame for the disgracefully state of care for senior citizens, but Brown bares most of it to date.

[Thos]

I fully agree that we are responsible for our own retirement. this why I am so B***** annoyed at Brown reducing the value of private pension plans. How dare he now expect people to provide for their own retirement, when it is patently obvious that he feels the need to tax people on these savings, to fund Labour follies.

Please forgive me for going back a few posts, but I was busy yesterday and I wanted to make a comment on the statement above.

We have covered this ground before when I attempted to put the reduction of private pension plans into some sort of context. I said then:-

About.......

"the "raid" on pension funds in the early years of the Brown Chancellorship. Yes, his abolition of the Advanced Capital Tax meant that pension funds could no longer claim a refund of tax received in dividends. At the same time, I believe, individuals were no longer able to claim refund of tax on personally owned shares. At that time the stock market was soaring away and many firms were allowing themselves a pension contribution "holiday", something they fail to mention now when their shares are not "soaring away" and their pension funds are in deficit. Instead they choose to blame solely the Chancellor. Don't forget, either, that the first raider of the tax relief on pension funds was Norman Lamont some 4 or 5 years before. Without wanting to labour this even more, Brown also sought to offset the removal of relief by a reduction in corporation tax."

So there were reasons for the action and of course you may accept the reasons or not as your inclinations lead.

Thos.

[andsome]

I fully agree that we are responsible for our own retirement. this why I am so B***** annoyed at Brown reducing the value of private pension plans. How dare he now expect people to provide for their own retirement, when it is patently obvious that he feels the need to tax people on these savings, to fund Labour follies.

Please forgive me for going back a few posts, but I was busy yesterday and I wanted to make a comment on the statement above.

We have covered this ground before when I attempted to put the reduction of private pension plans into some sort of context. I said then:-

About.......

"the "raid" on pension funds in the early years of the Brown Chancellorship. Yes, his abolition of the Advanced Capital Tax meant that pension funds could no longer claim a refund of tax received in dividends. At the same time, I believe, individuals were no longer able to claim refund of tax on personally owned shares. At that time the stock market was soaring away and many firms were allowing themselves a pension contribution "holiday", something they fail to mention now when their shares are not "soaring away" and their pension funds are in deficit. Instead they choose to blame solely the Chancellor. Don't forget, either, that the first raider of the tax relief on pension funds was Norman Lamont some 4 or 5 years before. Without wanting to labour this even more, Brown also sought to offset the removal of relief by a reduction in corporation tax."

So there were reasons for the action and of course you may accept the reasons or not as your inclinations lead.

Thos.

My company did not have a pension plan. My private pensions came about as a result of going short to save for the future. I was rewarded by a reduction of about 15% of the value of my plans due to Browns efforts, shortly before retirement.

[Thos]

Most pensioners worked for over 45 years and paid for their pensions during this time via a part of the NI payments. So to pay them a mere (approx) £84 per week is not really a good return on their investment in the NI. Especially when their council Tax is about £35 per week then there's the rest of the living costs all before you can eat/drink.

Brown screwed up the private pensions with his stealth taxes making these pensions minuscule and then taxes any income from them making it very difficult for anyone to have a decent standard of living unless they are an ex MP or fat cat whose snout has been in the trough.

Then if you are unfortunate enough to require care they force you use most of your savings, if you have any left, or sell any home you have to pay for the care.

Politicians of ALL Parties are to blame for the disgracefully state of care for senior citizens, but Brown bares most of it to date.

Para 1 above. I would not argue with that and my earlier comments on the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings 25 years ago are highly relevant.

Para 2 above. Please see the points I made earlier concerning the context in which the private pension fund were taxed. As far as taxing any income is concerned, this surely is a matter of setting the threshold right at which income tax becomes payable. It muddies the waters to relate this solely to pensioners. I, personally, think thresholds should be much higher and income tax levels should be reviewed for the better-off.

Para 3 above. I agree. Something should be done about that mess.

Para 4 above. I don't actually think that, apart from the payment for care in old age, that the state of care for senior citizens IS "disgraceful". It needs improving but certainly not disgraceful. And, finally, you won't be surprised to hear that over the period of his ministry, my own view is that Gordon Brown has done as much for OAP's as any Chancellor in my memory.

Thos. :)

[andsome]

Given with one hand and taken away with the other.