Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Remiss of me not to mention that to balance it out that todays young do get the enormous pleasure of eating avocado.
I would like to like that posting but I hate avocado so I won't. Doesn't avocado mean 'testicle' in some South American language or other? Or is that just an urban myth?
Personally suspect at least 50% (likely much higher) of all "avocado" dip sold in UK is actually mushy peas.
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
100% agree with this
Me too. The MPs at least nominally represent the electorate at large. Personally I think members of political parties should be limited to electing Party Chairman and no more.
Even if you think they should have no say in government, party members must at least have a say in picking their leader in opposition. The public can then confirm if they agree with that choice at the next general election.
If only MPs get a say on the next PM for a party in power, then Labour would also have to agree to remove the membership having a vote in power too. In 2007 for example, John McDonnell wanted to challenge Brown for leader and had John McDonnell got enough MPs nominations he would have gone to a ballot including Labour members and affiliated supporters. McDonnell could therefore in theory have ended up PM, not Gordon Brown
Yep. It should be put through as a law applying to both (or to be fair as it may happen in the future, all) parties. Any change in Party Leader when they are PM can only be done by a vote of their party MPs. Members/affiliates etc can have no part in it. And that result must then be ratified by a full vote of the Commons on the first opportunity as a vote of Confidence.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Completely agree pension tax is the way to go
Not sure DB being taxed more is equitable - the amounts rather than the source is the issue (though clearly there’s a correlation)
Any suggestion that this was anything but a home grown problem, triggered by the Chancellor, is clearly wrong. … In the period immediately before the Bank intervened, yields on 30-year UK government bonds rose by 35 basis points on two separate days. The biggest daily rise before last week, on data going back to the turn of the century, was 29 basis points.
Measured over a four-day period, the increase was more than twice as large as the biggest move since 2000, which occurred during a “dash for cash” at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic when global financial markets plunged into one of the worst meltdowns since the Wall Street crash on 1929.…
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
100% agree with this
Me too. The MPs at least nominally represent the electorate at large. Personally I think members of political parties should be limited to electing Party Chairman and no more.
Even if you think they should have no say in government, party members must at least have a say in picking their leader in opposition. The public can then confirm if they agree with that choice at the next general election.
If only MPs get a say on the next PM for a party in power, then Labour would also have to agree to remove the membership having a vote in power too. In 2007 for example, John McDonnell wanted to challenge Brown for leader and had John McDonnell got enough MPs nominations he would have gone to a ballot including Labour members and affiliated supporters. McDonnell could therefore in theory have ended up PM, not Gordon Brown
Your theoretical objection is based on alternate history. I give you real history and it is this: the Tory membership is responsible for giving us Boris Johnson and Lizzy Lightweight. The former started the destruction of the Tory brand, dragged it through the sewer and destroyed its few USPs, and now Lizzy is finishing the job.
Thanks to these two populist idiots we will have a Labour government for 20 years or more. Sensible right of centre government in this country is finished. And "Boris" is the primary culprit. His election victory which you so foolishly think absolves him of all sins, will prove to be pyrrhic victory.
How about this for a compromise on the Leadership rules that the Conservative Party could probably get through.
1) Same as currently to choose Final 2.
2) MPs and members then vote separately on Final 2 and the result is a 50:50 Electoral College.
In recent election, Truss won members 57-43. So for Sunak to have won overall, he would have needed to win the MPs by more than 57-43.
Seems a fair compromise. Members still play a major role. But if MPs want Candidate X by whatever margin, then members must want Candidate Y by a bigger margin for member choice to prevail.
Con Party needs to make this change now - and I suspect they could get it through.
If they can't the parliamentary party needs to defect en masse and reinvent itself as the Donservatives or some such, just to sidestep this rule.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
Wow:
I do believe we have another one.
Can we let this one run for a bit? Much more sophisticated than the others. It's almost as though there's an actual human behind it.
It didn't even get triggered by @Sandpit's comment about BA and last week asked me what I was talking about when I raised it. They're really upping their game.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Remiss of me not to mention that to balance it out that todays young do get the enormous pleasure of eating avocado.
I would like to like that posting but I hate avocado so I won't. Doesn't avocado mean 'testicle' in some South American language or other? Or is that just an urban myth?
Personally suspect at least 50% (likely much higher) of all "avocado" dip sold in UK is actually mushy peas.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
Some Conservative MPS as well. I see Kevin Hollinrake has been pushing hard for the adoption of the Living Wage Foundation's rates rather than the misnamed and inadequate National Living Wage rate pushed by the Government.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Any suggestion that this was anything but a home grown problem, triggered by the Chancellor, is clearly wrong. … In the period immediately before the Bank intervened, yields on 30-year UK government bonds rose by 35 basis points on two separate days. The biggest daily rise before last week, on data going back to the turn of the century, was 29 basis points.
Measured over a four-day period, the increase was more than twice as large as the biggest move since 2000, which occurred during a “dash for cash” at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic when global financial markets plunged into one of the worst meltdowns since the Wall Street crash on 1929.…
I note that the Bank analysis of a four day period has omitted entirely the impact of their own decision to engage in eighty billion pounds of Quantitative Tightening, which was announced the day betore so also happened within a four day period of the Mini Budget.
I've seen it argued the accession of Truss supports the notion that while in Opposition the leader can and should be chosen with membership involvement, the choice of a Prime Minister in office should be left to the MPs themselves.
100% agree with this
Me too. The MPs at least nominally represent the electorate at large. Personally I think members of political parties should be limited to electing Party Chairman and no more.
Even if you think they should have no say in government, party members must at least have a say in picking their leader in opposition. The public can then confirm if they agree with that choice at the next general election.
If only MPs get a say on the next PM for a party in power, then Labour would also have to agree to remove the membership having a vote in power too. In 2007 for example, John McDonnell wanted to challenge Brown for leader and had John McDonnell got enough MPs nominations he would have gone to a ballot including Labour members and affiliated supporters. McDonnell could therefore in theory have ended up PM, not Gordon Brown
Your theoretical objection is based on alternate history. I give you real history and it is this: the Tory membership is responsible for giving us Boris Johnson and Lizzy Lightweight. The former started the destruction of the Tory brand, dragged it through the sewer and destroyed its few USPs, and now Lizzy is finishing the job.
Thanks to these two populist idiots we will have a Labour government for 20 years or more. Sensible right of centre government in this country is finished. And "Boris" is the primary culprit. His election victory which you so foolishly think absolves him of all sins, will prove to be pyrrhic victory.
The public elected Boris to be our PM by a landslide in 2019, that is not an issue. The Tory membership also gave us Cameron who was elected by the public too. May was elected by MPs alone and while she did not get a majority still won most seats.
The issue is Truss in that she never won a general election and is miles behind in the polls and already deeply unpopular just weeks into the role.
If Boris had not won we would have had Corbyn PM and still not got Brexit done, a Starmer premiership is much less of a worry than that. Though the electorate is volatile. If Starmer wins and fails to deliver, he leads a country facing strikes and high inflation still and tax rises then the pendulum will soon swing back to the Tories again as with the volatile 1970s
Has it actually been conclusively determined that the 'no VONC for 12 months after new leader takes office' is an actual bona fide rule? I've seen plenty of mention of it here but I've not been able to find conclusive evidence that this is actually the case.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
No because the fixes are available, ranging from easy to difficult -
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Your argument is that there is no money, essentially because there is a deficit. But in that case there is no money for everything. Bye bye NHS, and nobody has the right to complain.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
I would point out this government did actually try something along those lines and got reversed in the McCloud judgement. Because they didn't consult properly on a major contractual change.
If you have a contract saying you are guaranteed to be provided with bread, and then the supplier says sorry, we only have yeast, you are entitled to say that isn't the contract you agreed. Which is roughly the situation with pensions.
Whether or not the action to change it should have been take some years ago, the fact is we are where we are.
The depressing irony is that a DB scheme for today's taxpayers could be managed, but the boomer generation will be trying to take all the money so they end up getting shafted.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Your argument is that there is no money, essentially because there is a deficit. But in that case there is no money for everything. Bye bye NHS, and nobody has the right to complain.
The nation ceases to function without the NHS. The world keeps turning after converting DB pensions to DC pensions.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Gibberish, a contract is a contract. You would presumably feel disgruntled if your employer stopped paying you because there was nothing left in the salary pot?
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Your argument is that there is no money, essentially because there is a deficit. But in that case there is no money for everything. Bye bye NHS, and nobody has the right to complain.
Well yes, unfunded things are cut all the time, that's democracy.
If the money had been actually set aside then there'd be money for the pensions, but there isn't. Instead people working today are expected to be liable to fund pensions they know they'll never receive, while also contributing to their own too.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Your argument is that there is no money, essentially because there is a deficit. But in that case there is no money for everything. Bye bye NHS, and nobody has the right to complain.
The nation ceases to function without the NHS. The world keeps turning after converting DB pensions to DC pensions.
You said yourself that some NHS users should be asked to pay for it. Same same.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Gibberish, a contract is a contract. You would presumably feel disgruntled if your employer stopped paying you because there was nothing left in the salary pot?
Yes I would.
It happens too when there's no money left.
Whatever is left in the pension pot should be used for the pension. No more, no less.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Your argument is that there is no money, essentially because there is a deficit. But in that case there is no money for everything. Bye bye NHS, and nobody has the right to complain.
The nation ceases to function without the NHS. The world keeps turning after converting DB pensions to DC pensions.
You said yourself that some NHS users should be asked to pay for it. Same same.
Wanting to back out of a contract like DB pensions is not a very good reason to renege. It's more acceptable to go bankrupt in such situations, selling off assets so that the promise can be made good to the greatest extent possible. Alternatively the state can just make it clear to investors and workers that when it signs legal contracts, they aren't worth the paper they are written on, like one of those countries that changes its military leader every six years.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
And you think that is a good thing?
Not especially, I have already said below I would be OK with both main parties limiting their memberships role in leadership elections to when they are in opposition and out of power
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
I think a careful reading of Bart's post suggests he was, actually. No money in the pot, no pension.
"Asda offers over 60s soup, a roll and unlimited tea and coffees for £1 in its 205 cafes to help customers get through cost of living crisis this winter"
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Has it actually been conclusively determined that the 'no VONC for 12 months after new leader takes office' is an actual bona fide rule? I've seen plenty of mention of it here but I've not been able to find conclusive evidence that this is actually the case.
The rules for electing the leader are controlled by the 1922 committee. They don't publish their procedures. They can change them but there is a procedure for doing so. Brady can't just make it up on the fly.
My instinct is that he wouldn't accept letters until twelve months have passed because of the VONC similarity whether or not it's a formal rule. But I'm not Graham Brady and I don't know his thinking, or what might prompt him to change the rules.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
To be fair, I think that is what BR is suggesting though. The civil service DB pension pot is technically empty, so no one in the civil service should get any pension.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Your argument is that there is no money, essentially because there is a deficit. But in that case there is no money for everything. Bye bye NHS, and nobody has the right to complain.
Well yes, unfunded things are cut all the time, that's democracy.
If the money had been actually set aside then there'd be money for the pensions, but there isn't. Instead people working today are expected to be liable to fund pensions they know they'll never receive, while also contributing to their own too.
In what universe is that fair?
"Things" does not include contractual obligations; that's the rule of law. Which, again, I thought you were a fan of.
"Asda offers over 60s soup, a roll and unlimited tea and coffees for £1 in its 205 cafes to help customers get through cost of living crisis this winter"
"Welcome to the Tory apocalypse Conservatism came to conference to die BY WILL LLOYD
Last year, the Conservative Party was in the grip of decadence. This year, it faces apocalypse. Their 2021 conference, in Manchester, was like The Wolf of Wall Street. Wine poured from the sky. Laughter ricocheted off the walls. They all thought, everyone did, that the Conservatives had another decade in power.
This year, in Birmingham, it was more 28 Days Later. The list of absent MPs, led by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, stretched back to London. “There’s nobody here,” one member who attended the last 12 conferences mourned. “It feels deserted.” Twelve long years. We have tasted every philosophical flavour of Conservatism: David Cameron’s bougie-patrician, nudge theory-driven paternalism. Theresa May’s fretful Home Counties authoritarianism. Boris Johnson’s giggly One Nation boosterism. All gone."
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I have seen the idea floated of passing a law that a parliament automatically dissolves after a short period following a new PM taking office (mid-parliament).
I don't really like the idea much, it has to be said. Strikes me (like the FTPA) as creating unintended consequences - cementing a bad leader in place because MPs are scared they will have to face a GE if they move to depose them.
But I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think Truss' election has pushed the envelope compared to previous mid-parliament leadership takeovers because she has been so forceful about her view that the governments before her have been wrong on economic policy - and decided to steer the ship away from it. Perhaps she is feeling the consequences of this in the polls though. Doesn't help the country in the interim, mind.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Gibberish, a contract is a contract. You would presumably feel disgruntled if your employer stopped paying you because there was nothing left in the salary pot?
Yes I would.
It happens too when there's no money left.
Whatever is left in the pension pot should be used for the pension. No more, no less.
Wrong, Bart. Your employer only gets not to pay you if there is no money *anywhere* not no money in the salary pot. Ditto with pensions. Pots simply don't come into it.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I have seen the idea floated of passing a law that a parliament automatically dissolves after a short period following a new PM taking office (mid-parliament).
I don't really like the idea much, it has to be said. Strikes me (like the FTPA) as creating unintended consequences - cementing a bad leader in place because MPs are scared they will have to face a GE if they move to depose them.
But I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think Truss' election has pushed the envelope compared to previous mid-parliament leadership takeovers because she has been so forceful about her view that the governments before her have been wrong on economic policy - and decided to steer the ship away from it. Perhaps she is feeling the consequences of this in the polls though. Doesn't help the country in the interim, mind.
Give everyone a vote in the election process when the governing party changes leader?
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
Gilt yields continuing to creep back up after the BoE’s special monetary operation.
Uk 10 year currently 4.2%
Are we in the eye of the storm?
To put that in to perspective the UK had borrowing costs for long term debt well above 12% in the 1970s. The country was often borrowing money at near 15% at a fixed rate. I think 14.5% was the highest coupon offered on very long dated government debt.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
I don't think it is envy to point out that pension arrangements are unaffordable.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are proposing that the country default so it doesn't go bankrupt?
The calculations for the liabilities of a defined benefit scheme are simple (ok they aremt simple but in the context of the world of finance they are simple). Companies preffered doing stock buy backs, issuing dividends and massivley increasing executive pay over investing in their pension schemes to cover the entirely predictable future liabilities.
That various companies took payment holidays in the 1990s and now whine about their liabilties is nauseatingly outrageous. The people who advised them it would be fine should be shot.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are proposing that the country default so it doesn't go bankrupt?
A restatement of DB to DC isn't a default, it's a restatement.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
No, it is resentment that some leaching bastard is on a pension of £23,000 of your hard-earned money when by abrogating the law of contract you could screw them down to 18.5k.
Nothing personal btw, I have no pensionary expectations other than a SIPP.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are proposing that the country default so it doesn't go bankrupt?
A restatement of DB to DC isn't a default, it's a restatement.
Genuine LOL.
ETA remind me not to enter any bets with you. Because if you lost and said Instead of paying out at 10/1 I will just return your stake with interest, that would be a restatement, right?
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are proposing that the country default so it doesn't go bankrupt?
A restatement of DB to DC isn't a default, it's a restatement.
"We restated your sterling assets into Kwarteng bucks."
On topic, I need a new analogy for the shellacking the Tory Party is going to receive.
Beaten like morning wood?
Beaten like a dusty carpet?
Fifty Shades of Grave?
Trussed up like a turkey for Christmas?
Dissolving like an over-ripe corpse?
Corbyned off then Starmered to death.
I think you misunderstand how low this govt has sunk. Starmer has nothing to worry about and even Corbyn would have been less damaging than the current shower.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
The calculations for the liabilities of a defined benefit scheme are simple (ok they aremt simple but in the context of the world of finance they are simple). Companies preffered doing stock buy backs, issuing dividends and massivley increasing executive pay over investing in their pension schemes to cover the entirely predictable future liabilities.
That various companies took payment holidays in the 1990s and now whine about their liabilties is nauseatingly outrageous. The people who advised them it would be fine should be shot.
Although that doesn't explain the most overexposed pension fund of the lot - the Universities' Superannuation Scheme. Whose owners do not have stock, or issue dividends.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
The MP's are worse than the members, being disproportionately mad, incompetent, rapists, or other kinds of criminal.
I really would urge you to reconsider. It is bloody irritating when you get done for doing 33 mph in a 30 mph limit on a fine day when others are doing 50 mph on a rainy day. But that does not mean that speed limits should be abolished. And Sue Ellen is an unfair person who should never be allowed near high office and makes me ashamed to be Conservative Party member.
In 2018, pension liabilities of central and local government comprised:
£4.8 trillion of state pension entitlements (224% of 2018 gross domestic product (GDP)) unfunded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees estimated at £1.2 trillion (55% of GDP) funded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees worth £413 billion (19% of GDP)
Rings of Power update ***Spoiler alert considering I am the only one on earth watching it.
And I’m loving it. Storyboarding, dialogue, acting all very good.
I wasn’t so keen with episode 5 as it got a bit melodramatic, though the idea of Ilúvatar creating Mithras from a silmaril I liked. Episode 6 I felt had too much action, too fast paced in moving Story on so much, though Galadriel interrogating Adar was a standout moment in the series, as was Adar killing Sauron because Sauron didn’t care for the Orcs enough a great idea. But the episode squeezed in the creation of Mount Doom as the BIG plot twist.
I really would urge you to reconsider. It is bloody irritating when you get done for doing 33 mph in a 30 mph limit on a fine day when others are doing 50 mph on a rainy day. But that does not mean that speed limits should be abolished. And Sue Ellen is an unfair person who should never be allowed near high office and makes me ashamed to be Conservative Party member.
That would be a good example if the ECHR mandated a particular speed limit.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
Gilt yields continuing to creep back up after the BoE’s special monetary operation.
Uk 10 year currently 4.2%
Are we in the eye of the storm?
To put that in to perspective the UK had borrowing costs for long term debt well above 12% in the 1970s. The country was often borrowing money at near 15% at a fixed rate. I think 14.5% was the highest coupon offered on very long dated government debt.
4% interest would have been considered laughably low, for most of my lifetime.
Rings of Power update ***Spoiler alert considering I am the only one on earth watching it.
And I’m loving it. Storyboarding, dialogue, acting all very good.
I wasn’t so keen with episode 5 as it got a bit melodramatic, though the idea of Ilúvatar creating Mithras from a silmaril I liked. Episode 6 I felt had too much action, too fast paced in moving Story on so much, though Galadriel interrogating Adar was a standout moment in the series, as was Adar killing Sauron because Sauron didn’t care for the Orcs enough a great idea. But the episode squeezed in the creation of Mount Doom as the BIG plot twist.
I'll watch it in due course. It's Tolkien fanfiction, but Tolkien gave nothing more than the barest outline of history for the Second Age, anyway.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
There have sometimes been suggestions of some MPs (supporters of the leading candidate) lending tactical support to the candidate they feel is more bearable so that that person goes through to the ballot. I'm not sure if that happened this time round but if it did then what a stark warning to MPs not to play silly buggers in future.
Conversely if Sunak had played silly buggers he could have lent enough votes to Mordaunt to eliminate Liz. If only...
Perhaps he considered Liz more beatable (I meant tactical voting to elevate the more beatable opponent - not "bearable") but it's more likely that he didn't have enough spare votes to lend them out or for his supporters to feel that they should. Lending votes to Mordaunt would have been something of a public service in the interest of the greater good! But perhaps it's easier to see that with the benefit of hindsight (Thank you to you and anothers for the replies and the welcome.)
"Conservative MPs: the smartest electorate on the planet" my arse.....
Thick as pig-shit for allowing Truss v Rishi. My MP doesn't seem to be talking to me after I pointed this out.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I think now you are making the mistake you point out about comparing today's problems to those of unrepresentative groups in the past.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
On topic, I need a new analogy for the shellacking the Tory Party is going to receive.
Buried like a squirrel's nuts.
This party is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet it’s Maker! This is a late party. It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If you the membership had not nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! It’s run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARTY!!
- Well, I'd better replace it, then.
It doesn't matter if the Conservative Party vanishes down the plughole. Something else will replace it.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are proposing that the country default so it doesn't go bankrupt?
A restatement of DB to DC isn't a default, it's a restatement.
There are two separate issues, aren't there? One is the noise- who takes the benefit/loss of whatever the market is doing on retirement day? That's the difference between DB and DC. A government really ought to be able to smooth that out, and some of us are willing to have a smaller reliable pension over a bigger variable one.
The other is the signal- how much is typically in the pot? Clearly the answer is "not enough". But that's something that doesn't have a satisfactory solution that doesn't involve a time machine. But taxpayers saying "we don't like the committments our forebears made. Soz." is the kind of thing that is rightly called out as tawdry when capitalists do it.
One big difference in housing today is the political demand and supply for restrictions on new housing. That doesn't seem to have been as popular or permissible a political position in the past.
Ukrainian hackers took down the Russian GONETS communication satellite system for a week. (The one that, inter alia, the FSB uses to keep in touch.) Corresponded with the big Ukrainian push in the SW and the latest push in the East.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I think now you are making the mistake you point out about comparing today's problems to those of unrepresentative groups in the past.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
I got on the housing ladder at the wrong point, discovering in 1993 that my flat was worth about 40% of what I had paid for it, two and a half years previously, with a mortgage that was about twice its value. I don't think that wsa an unusual experience among young people at that time.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I was lucky enough that my fantastic grandfather left me £5000 when he died in 1982 which paid for the deposit on a house. It is now "worth" over a million.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I think now you are making the mistake you point out about comparing today's problems to those of unrepresentative groups in the past.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
I got on the housing ladder at the wrong point, discovering in 1993 that my flat was worth about 40% of what I had paid for it, two and a half years previously, with a mortgage that was about twice its value. I don't think that wsa an unusual experience among young people at that time.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are proposing that the country default so it doesn't go bankrupt?
A restatement of DB to DC isn't a default, it's a restatement.
Its a material breach of contract unless it is done by agreement. A generation of employees in the private sector will have relatively impoverished retirements because they did agree with very little idea of what they were giving up. Although, in some cases, had they not agreed their company/employer would have been strangled in the same way as BA have been,
Gilt yields continuing to creep back up after the BoE’s special monetary operation.
Uk 10 year currently 4.2%
Are we in the eye of the storm?
To put that in to perspective the UK had borrowing costs for long term debt well above 12% in the 1970s. The country was often borrowing money at near 15% at a fixed rate. I think 14.5% was the highest coupon offered on very long dated government debt.
4% interest would have been considered laughably low, for most of my lifetime.
There’s a great quote from Walter Bagehot, an editor of the economist in the 19th century;
‘John Bull can stand many things, but he cannot stand two percent.’
One big difference in housing today is the political demand and supply for restrictions on new housing. That doesn't seem to have been as popular or permissible a political position in the past.
A big difference, I think, is that housing was a massively important issue to both Conservative and Labour parties, from the 1920's to the 1980's, which exercised a lot of the best minds in those parties, and then somehow, it fell off the radar.
One really interesting (and very obscure) book I've read, Piers Wauchope's history of Camden Council, illustrates this. When it was formed, in 1964, Camden was dominated by St. Pancras councillors, who were old left, and obsessed with housing. By the 1980's it was dominated by the new left, based in Hampstead, whose principal concerns were nuclear disarmament, anti-apartheid, and overseas aid.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I think now you are making the mistake you point out about comparing today's problems to those of unrepresentative groups in the past.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
I got on the housing ladder at the wrong point, discovering in 1993 that my flat was worth about 40% of what I had paid for it, two and a half years previously, with a mortgage that was about twice its value. I don't think that wsa an unusual experience among young people at that time.
Maybe not in the next 12 months either.
It might get bad, but it won't get *that* bad. This was when mortgage rates hit 16%.
The preventable death of the Scottish Tories - Ruth Davidson gave them a chance. Her successors blew it
What she failed to do was make the Scottish Tories a viable party of government (a tall order at the best of times) and now the gains she made look set to be reversed.
On these numbers, the Tories would face another 1997-style Scottish wipeout. Indeed, as far as I can tell, YouGov’s 12 per cent would represent the worst ever result for the party or any of its predecessors.
Showing the part-time referee a red card would salve the frustrations of many a rank-and-file Scottish Tory but the uncomfortable truth is that the talent pool for replacing him is shallow.
Six years as the principal opposition party and they have almost nothing to show for it.
Rings of Power update ***Spoiler alert considering I am the only one on earth watching it.
And I’m loving it. Storyboarding, dialogue, acting all very good.
I wasn’t so keen with episode 5 as it got a bit melodramatic, though the idea of Ilúvatar creating Mithras from a silmaril I liked. Episode 6 I felt had too much action, too fast paced in moving Story on so much, though Galadriel interrogating Adar was a standout moment in the series, as was Adar killing Sauron because Sauron didn’t care for the Orcs enough a great idea. But the episode squeezed in the creation of Mount Doom as the BIG plot twist.
We're quite enjoying it as well.
Whilst we're on about media, I watched "Bill and Ted face the music" and absolutely loved it. It will never be a classic, but it's one of the better threequals.
Comments
Not sure DB being taxed more is equitable - the amounts rather than the source is the issue (though clearly there’s a correlation)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/06/bank-of-england-confirms-pension-funds-almost-collapsed-amid-market-meltdown
Any suggestion that this was anything but a home grown problem, triggered by the Chancellor, is clearly wrong.
… In the period immediately before the Bank intervened, yields on 30-year UK government bonds rose by 35 basis points on two separate days. The biggest daily rise before last week, on data going back to the turn of the century, was 29 basis points.
Measured over a four-day period, the increase was more than twice as large as the biggest move since 2000, which occurred during a “dash for cash” at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic when global financial markets plunged into one of the worst meltdowns since the Wall Street crash on 1929.…
Thanks to these two populist idiots we will have a Labour government for 20 years or more. Sensible right of centre government in this country is finished. And "Boris" is the primary culprit. His election victory which you so foolishly think absolves him of all sins, will prove to be pyrrhic victory.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Liz Truss 2022 - Shed the Pound(s)!
@jk_rowling
I stand in solidarity with @ForWomenScot and all women protesting and speaking outside the Scottish parliament. #NoToSelfID
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1577964493702938626
The issue is Truss in that she never won a general election and is miles behind in the polls and already deeply unpopular just weeks into the role.
If Boris had not won we would have had Corbyn PM and still not got Brexit done, a Starmer premiership is much less of a worry than that. Though the electorate is volatile. If Starmer wins and fails to deliver, he leads a country facing strikes and high inflation still and tax rises then the pendulum will soon swing back to the Tories again as with the volatile 1970s
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
If you have a contract saying you are guaranteed to be provided with bread, and then the supplier says sorry, we only have yeast, you are entitled to say that isn't the contract you agreed. Which is roughly the situation with pensions.
Whether or not the action to change it should have been take some years ago, the fact is we are where we are.
The depressing irony is that a DB scheme for today's taxpayers could be managed, but the boomer generation will be trying to take all the money so they end up getting shafted.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
If the money had been actually set aside then there'd be money for the pensions, but there isn't. Instead people working today are expected to be liable to fund pensions they know they'll never receive, while also contributing to their own too.
In what universe is that fair?
It happens too when there's no money left.
Whatever is left in the pension pot should be used for the pension. No more, no less.
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1578086542395965456
I could emulate @Leon - nice picture of my Asda Cream of Chicken Soup, Bread Roll and Coffee - who needs fancy oysters?
My instinct is that he wouldn't accept letters until twelve months have passed because of the VONC similarity whether or not it's a formal rule. But I'm not Graham Brady and I don't know his thinking, or what might prompt him to change the rules.
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/1577960868159037441?s=46&t=yj3VFqnaymBLiZyyvAzRMg
Uk 10 year currently 4.2%
Are we in the eye of the storm?
Conservatism came to conference to die
BY WILL LLOYD
Last year, the Conservative Party was in the grip of decadence. This year, it faces apocalypse. Their 2021 conference, in Manchester, was like The Wolf of Wall Street. Wine poured from the sky. Laughter ricocheted off the walls. They all thought, everyone did, that the Conservatives had another decade in power.
This year, in Birmingham, it was more 28 Days Later. The list of absent MPs, led by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, stretched back to London. “There’s nobody here,” one member who attended the last 12 conferences mourned. “It feels deserted.” Twelve long years. We have tasted every philosophical flavour of Conservatism: David Cameron’s bougie-patrician, nudge theory-driven paternalism. Theresa May’s fretful Home Counties authoritarianism. Boris Johnson’s giggly One Nation boosterism. All gone."
https://unherd.com/2022/10/welcome-to-the-tory-apocalypse/
I don't really like the idea much, it has to be said. Strikes me (like the FTPA) as creating unintended consequences - cementing a bad leader in place because MPs are scared they will have to face a GE if they move to depose them.
But I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think Truss' election has pushed the envelope compared to previous mid-parliament leadership takeovers because she has been so forceful about her view that the governments before her have been wrong on economic policy - and decided to steer the ship away from it. Perhaps she is feeling the consequences of this in the polls though. Doesn't help the country in the interim, mind.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/odd-lots/id1056200096
But it may be Putin himself running another botched false flag.
I blame Gordon Brown.
That various companies took payment holidays in the 1990s and now whine about their liabilties is nauseatingly outrageous. The people who advised them it would be fine should be shot.
Nothing personal btw, I have no pensionary expectations other than a SIPP.
Cos a NASCAR crowd was chanting it and the commentator pretended they were saying Let's Go Brandon.
ETA remind me not to enter any bets with you. Because if you lost and said Instead of paying out at 10/1 I will just return your stake with interest, that would be a restatement, right?
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
Overinflated executive pay I will give you!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/articles/pensionsinthenationalaccountsafullerpictureoftheuksfundedandunfundedpensionobligations/2018
In 2018, pension liabilities of central and local government comprised:
£4.8 trillion of state pension entitlements (224% of 2018 gross domestic product (GDP))
unfunded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees estimated at £1.2 trillion (55% of GDP)
funded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees worth £413 billion (19% of GDP)
cheer up lads, it's only 1/4 of the state pension
And I’m loving it. Storyboarding, dialogue, acting all very good.
I wasn’t so keen with episode 5 as it got a bit melodramatic, though the idea of Ilúvatar creating Mithras from a silmaril I liked.
Episode 6 I felt had too much action, too fast paced in moving Story on so much, though Galadriel interrogating Adar was a standout moment in the series, as was Adar killing Sauron because Sauron didn’t care for the Orcs enough a great idea. But the episode squeezed in the creation of Mount Doom as the BIG plot twist.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
Thick as pig-shit for allowing Truss v Rishi. My MP doesn't seem to be talking to me after I pointed this out.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
One is the noise- who takes the benefit/loss of whatever the market is doing on retirement day? That's the difference between DB and DC. A government really ought to be able to smooth that out, and some of us are willing to have a smaller reliable pension over a bigger variable one.
The other is the signal- how much is typically in the pot? Clearly the answer is "not enough". But that's something that doesn't have a satisfactory solution that doesn't involve a time machine. But taxpayers saying "we don't like the committments our forebears made. Soz." is the kind of thing that is rightly called out as tawdry when capitalists do it.
No, I don't have a good easy answer.
https://cybernews.com/cyber-war/we-breached-russian-satellite-network-say-pro-ukraine-partisans/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=cybernews&utm_content=tweet
‘John Bull can stand many things, but he cannot stand two percent.’
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2022/07/08/john-bull-and-two-percent
It’s a fairly simple explanation of asset bubbles and investment manias, as investors react to low interest rates by reaching for impossible yield.
Very low interest rates turn sane men mad.
I’m reading Edward Chancellors book, right now.
One really interesting (and very obscure) book I've read, Piers Wauchope's history of Camden Council, illustrates this. When it was formed, in 1964, Camden was dominated by St. Pancras councillors, who were old left, and obsessed with housing. By the 1980's it was dominated by the new left, based in Hampstead, whose principal concerns were nuclear disarmament, anti-apartheid, and overseas aid.
- Ruth Davidson gave them a chance. Her successors blew it
What she failed to do was make the Scottish Tories a viable party of government (a tall order at the best of times) and now the gains she made look set to be reversed.
On these numbers, the Tories would face another 1997-style Scottish wipeout. Indeed, as far as I can tell, YouGov’s 12 per cent would represent the worst ever result for the party or any of its predecessors.
Showing the part-time referee a red card would salve the frustrations of many a rank-and-file Scottish Tory but the uncomfortable truth is that the talent pool for replacing him is shallow.
Six years as the principal opposition party and they have almost nothing to show for it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-preventable-death-of-the-scottish-tories
Whilst we're on about media, I watched "Bill and Ted face the music" and absolutely loved it. It will never be a classic, but it's one of the better threequals.