The death of the pension?
Discussion
F i F said:
Sick of saying this, in many cases pension holidays were forced on schemes because they were, in the eyes of the revenue, overfunded.
No argument was accepted that bad times can follow good investment trading times, you had to take pension holidays and improve benefits.
Then along came Winky, recession, changes in accounting rules how pensions had to be shown, increased longevity and so on. Meanwhile Govt continues to follow a set of rules different from the ones imppose on others.
Plus of course idiots with huge chips on their shoulder continue to post inaccurate rubbish like you have just done despite being repeatedly told you are wrong.
Frankly it's beyond tiresome.
Don't think that your comments are fair at all on Crankedup, if it's so tiresome why do you bother to post? Pension holidays were 'allowed' because some notable funds were overfunded, but this misconceived piece of legislation opened the floodgates. Quite why you attempt to defend this is beyond me, made worse by your appalling, self righteous tone.No argument was accepted that bad times can follow good investment trading times, you had to take pension holidays and improve benefits.
Then along came Winky, recession, changes in accounting rules how pensions had to be shown, increased longevity and so on. Meanwhile Govt continues to follow a set of rules different from the ones imppose on others.
Plus of course idiots with huge chips on their shoulder continue to post inaccurate rubbish like you have just done despite being repeatedly told you are wrong.
Frankly it's beyond tiresome.
Blue62 said:
Don't think that your comments are fair at all on Crankedup, if it's so tiresome why do you bother to post? Pension holidays were 'allowed' because some notable funds were overfunded, but this misconceived piece of legislation opened the floodgates. Quite why you attempt to defend this is beyond me, made worse by your appalling, self righteous tone.
In the majority of cases, contributions were forced on companies by the Inland Revenue.That's the point.
Sidicks
fandango_c said:
crankedup said:
Like I suggested earlier, why would any sane person want to invest their hard earn't into a scheme administrated by a group of professional investors that are unable to provide adequate assurances of the investment outcome? Since the 1970's we have seen time and again the utter dismal performances of Companies that seem to have nothing much to offer.
If you invest in risky assets, the investment return can't be guaranteed. There's no such thing as a crystal. Ball that predicts the future.Since the 1970s (and prior to this), we have also seen time and time again good performances of companies that seem to have a lot to offer.
F i F said:
crankedup said:
Robert Maxwell was the first corporate thief to stick his greasy hands into workers pensions IIRC. That was topped by Thatcher declaring Companies would be permitted to take 'Pension Holidays', yet another brilliant Thatcher policy
Sick of saying this, in many cases pension holidays were forced on schemes because they were, in the eyes of the revenue, overfunded.No argument was accepted that bad times can follow good investment trading times, you had to take pension holidays and improve benefits.
Then along came Winky, recession, changes in accounting rules how pensions had to be shown, increased longevity and so on. Meanwhile Govt continues to follow a set of rules different from the ones imppose on others.
Plus of course idiots with huge chips on their shoulder continue to post inaccurate rubbish like you have just done despite being repeatedly told you are wrong.
Frankly it's beyond tiresome.
crankedup said:
Clearly the riskier the investment then higher returns, or not as the case may be. But in my mind why pay an investment house to manage a lower risk investment strategy, after all the lower the risk the less 'skill' is required for a half decent return. But of course you still shelling out the management fee. The good times from the eighties are well and truly over and I have seen previously high performers hit the rocks now that those easy days are gone. As you say, its all crystal ball stuff anyway, my ball is as crystal as the next mans.
The riskier the investment, the higher the expected return.sidicks said:
Blue62 said:
Don't think that your comments are fair at all on Crankedup, if it's so tiresome why do you bother to post? Pension holidays were 'allowed' because some notable funds were overfunded, but this misconceived piece of legislation opened the floodgates. Quite why you attempt to defend this is beyond me, made worse by your appalling, self righteous tone.
In the majority of cases, contributions were forced on companies by the Inland Revenue.That's the point.
Sidicks
@Blue62 it's not being self righteous, it's simply stating the facts, but all we ever get from the chip on shoulder mob is the whole thing is the fault of companies taking pension holidays.
So we explain it, and some time later they come back with same incorrect guff.
So it's explained again, and still ignored.
And so the iterative loop goes on, quite why they don't get it yet is beyond me.
You want a really really really 100% risky investment that's CERTAIN to lose you the entire amount?
Buy an annuity.
And then die.
Mind you, I suppose there's always the chance you WON'T die!! Well? Are you feeling lucky, punk?
The faster pensions die the better. The people who work in that industry can always get a job selling boilerhouse shares or Nigerian bank deposits.
Buy an annuity.
And then die.
Mind you, I suppose there's always the chance you WON'T die!! Well? Are you feeling lucky, punk?
The faster pensions die the better. The people who work in that industry can always get a job selling boilerhouse shares or Nigerian bank deposits.
groak said:
You want a really really really 100% risky investment that's CERTAIN to lose you the entire amount?
Buy an annuity.
And then die.
Mind you, I suppose there's always the chance you WON'T die!! Well? Are you feeling lucky, punk?
An annuity isn't an investment. But being a bit thick, you wouldn't realise that.Buy an annuity.
And then die.
Mind you, I suppose there's always the chance you WON'T die!! Well? Are you feeling lucky, punk?
crankedup said:
Tiggsy said:
Right, because Maxwell stealing from his fund is all part and parcel of the current issue.
You might as well say Diana crashing her Merc is why large engined cars arent as popular right now.
Nonsense, it suggests that even these corporate giants are not adverse to dipping into funds when it suits them. And don't come back with 'Maxwell was a one off'. You might as well say Diana crashing her Merc is why large engined cars arent as popular right now.
Today legislation restricts the payment of money out of pension schemes by trustees to employers. The conditions are stringent and include the requirement that surplus assets (over and above those required to meet members' benefits) can only be paid to an employer where the existing assets are at least sufficient to buy out all members' benefit entitlements in full with an insurance company. Very limited other reasons, eg scheme winding up, or repayment of a specific debt owed by scheme to sponsor.
This was done under Pension Act 2004.
I'm handcuffed to a company pension for at least another 5years(assuming the goal post aren't moved)but at 55 thats it I'm taking my money.The holidays the companies took in the immediate aftermath of privatisation were recoverable it's the actions since which have weakened my and plenty of other company schemes QE being the most recent.It's funny how the union closed shop was outlawed but not the closed shop of the pension scheme.My contributions alone amount to a good mortgage ,factor in the top up from the employer and it's nearly £750 amonth.I wish I could take my part else where.
W124Bob said:
I'm handcuffed to a company pension for at least another 5years(assuming the goal post aren't moved)but at 55 thats it I'm taking my money.The holidays the companies took in the immediate aftermath of privatisation were recoverable it's the actions since which have weakened my and plenty of other company schemes QE being the most recent.
To be fair, QE only impacted those schemes that had deliberately mis-matched their liabilities i.e. taking deliberate investment risk to try and achieve higher returns.Those schemes that were well matched were basicallly unaffected by QE.
W124Bob said:
It's funny how the union closed shop was outlawed but not the closed shop of the pension scheme.My contributions alone amount to a good mortgage ,factor in the top up from the employer and it's nearly £750 amonth.I wish I could take my part else where.
Really, you have a final salary pension fund and you would choose to cash this in - why????Sidicks
groak said:
Well I certainly think we could agree on THAT at least! I mean, it's not reasonable to consider something with 100% certainty of vanishing as an 'investment', is it?
Given that the participant has absolutely no investment risk, why would you consider this an investment product???Edited by groak on Saturday 21st April 19:10
sidicks said:
Really, you have a final salary pension fund and you would choose to cash this in - why????
Sidicks
Actually 56 and I'll go but it's got more to do with that'll be 40years doing shifts which I reckon is enough for anyone and driving trains isn't fun anymore,god I've done days work which I would have done for nothing in the past!Sidicks
W124Bob said:
Actually 56 and I'll go but it's got more to do with that'll be 40years doing shifts which I reckon is enough for anyone and driving trains isn't fun anymore,god I've done days work which I would have done for nothing in the past!
Do you mean that you will retire and take your benefits?(That is far more understandable than what i thought you meant - taking a transfer value and investing it in a new pension product).
If you leave this employment you don't have to take your pension straight away, you would be entitled to a deferred pension at a later date, and obviously the longer you wait the higher it will be.
Sidicks
Ozzie Osmond said:
By the time most people on PH get to retirement there will be so many oldsters creaking around that the state simply won't be able to afford to provide very much for them at all. So best take some sensible pills and start saving/investing.
Except that according to propaganda, most of the "oldsters" will have been told that they will live till they are a hundred and ten, and due to changes in the pensions, will be required to continue working until they are 80, thus funding the rest of us.I say us, but with questionable male health heritage, I suspect I won't be discussing this round the dinner table in the care home with any of you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff