Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by eddie on Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:24 pm

The government’s trying to rush through new laws that could let big businesses put millions of our pensions at risk. We've got 48 hours to stop them.

In the rush to save a failing company, Tata Steel, the government’s planning to give them the power to cut staff pensions. Experts are warning it could open the floodgates for other companies to follow suit. It could put millions of pensions at risk.

But 38 Degrees members could stop them. The government’s consulting on their plans right now - but they’d probably prefer to keep them quiet. If thousands of us sign a huge petition today, then deliver it on Wednesday we can force the plan out of the shadows.

We’ve not got much time. The consultation closes in 48 hours so we’ve got to act fast.

Pensions are the safety net that let us sleep easy knowing that we’ve prepared for later life. Most of us spend years paying into them, but this new law could give big business bosses the power to go back on their promises and empty the pot.

The government prides themselves on being good to pensioners. They know it’s a vote-winner. The last thing they want is a huge to-do over pensions that could anger a huge number of people they need on side.

If tens of thousands of us sign a huge petition to stop the government rushing through these dangerous laws, it could make them back down to avoid the embarrassment.

Sign the petition

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/pensions-petition-ts

_________________
The soul of a gypsy, the heart of a hippy, the spirit of a fairy
avatar
eddie
king of beards. Keeper of the Whip. head cook and bottle washer. Senior mushroom muncher

Posts : 31424
Join date : 2013-07-28
Age : 47
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by sassy on Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:29 pm

Signed, I might already have mine, but it could cause mayhem for those who have been paying in for years.

_________________
This planet is our home.  Our life and hers are interdependent - Doreen Valiente


The Left want to make life easier for as many people as possible, The Right want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else.
avatar
sassy
Convicted Hex Offender

Posts : 17238
Join date : 2015-01-04
Age : 71

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by The Devil, You Know on Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:39 pm

talking of pensions

The devastating impact of Labour's raid on pensions: The tax grab has cost workers £118bn since 1997. (Office for Budget Responsibility)

_________________
"If a socialist understood economics, he wouldn't be a socialist" : Friedrich Hayek
"

I know a place where your speech is free
and the only mod is me
Israel uses weapons to protect its people, the Palestinians use people to protect their weapons
#tories4Corbyn
avatar
The Devil, You Know

Posts : 2932
Join date : 2015-05-11
Location : Room 101 (which does not exist)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by Irn Bru on Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:18 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:talking of pensions

The devastating impact of Labour's raid on pensions: The tax grab has cost workers £118bn since 1997. (Office for Budget Responsibility)

If you want to know the truth ask a pensions expert.

We used to have a pension system that was the envy of the rest of the world. This system is now crumbling and companies are moving away from final salary occupational pension provision. Not only this, but many thousands of people, who thought they had a 'guaranteed' pension and had been relying on their employer's pension promise, have suddenly found that this pension has disappeared.
The Press have been trying to blame Gordon Brown's removal of Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in 1997 for the problems, but this is simply not true.

There are many, many reasons why our pension schemes are in trouble. It is not possible to point to just one or two factors. Responsibility is widely spread.

The Tory Government, under Nigel Lawson's Chancellorship, made a big mistake when it decided to tax pension fund surpluses in the late 1980's. These surpluses should have been allowed to build up, in order to cover schemes for times when markets turned down and/or when more and more people retired and needed to receive pensions from the scheme. Essentially, we have failed to let the surpluses build up and they are just not there when we need them.

After this, successive Tory Governments piled on more and more costs, thinking pension schemes would always be able to afford to pay more out, because they still had big surpluses. Of course, the reason pension funds had the surpluses was because not many people were actually drawing pensions yet (there were far more people contributing than numbers retired) and also because equity returns had been unusually high and scheme assets had grown faster than expected. But the pool of assets was too tempting for politicians to resist. They kept wanting to pile more costs onto pension schemes, (partly perhaps as a way of hoping to reduce the future costs to the Exchequer of supporting an ageing population), but in the process making pensions more and more expensive for companies to provide.

Then the Tories made the many mistakes surrounding the 1995 Pensions Act. This Act came into effect in 1997 and forced all employers to guarantee to pay fully index-linked pensions to all members (up to 5%). On top of the many other mandatory requirements (like spouse cover, preservation and revaluation for deferred members etc which had been introduced over the years) this added enormously to the costs of providing pensions. The measures are all, in themselves, excellent for members but, by making them compulsory, there was no 'safety valve' in the system. If investment returns fell, or if the employer's business was in trouble for a couple of years, they could not escape these extra costs.

The 1995 Act also introduced the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR) and regulations requiring more costs to prepare Statements of Investment Principles, pay for compliance and regulatory expenses etc. These measures again were intended to benefit members and make pensions 'safer', but added to the costs of running the schemes. In addition, of course, they had the terrible effect of leading people to believe that their scheme assets were safe if it was 'fully funded' on the MFR for example. The 1995 Act also introduced the iniquitous priority order rules, which mean people not yet retired can end up losing all their pension! No provision was made to protect pensions of those very close to retirement, or to protect monies transferred in from other employers' schemes.

Finally, of course, this Government removed ACT relief altogether - but this had already been reduced by the Tories during the 1990's, so it is not entirely fair to blame all on Gordon Brown.


http://www.rosaltmann.com/whathashappened.htm

Cheers

_________________
The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly.

Friedrich Hayek

In other words a bunch of cap-doffers and forelock tuggers.
avatar
Irn Bru
The Tartan terror. Keeper of the royal sporran. Chief Haggis Hunter

Posts : 7727
Join date : 2013-12-11
Location : Edinburgh

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by Tommy Monk on Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:48 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:talking of pensions

The devastating impact of Labour's raid on pensions: The tax grab has cost workers £118bn since 1997. (Office for Budget Responsibility)

If you want to know the truth ask a pensions expert.

We used to have a pension system that was the envy of the rest of the world. This system is now crumbling and companies are moving away from final salary occupational pension provision. Not only this, but many thousands of people, who thought they had a 'guaranteed' pension and had been relying on their employer's pension promise, have suddenly found that this pension has disappeared.
The Press have been trying to blame Gordon Brown's removal of Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in 1997 for the problems, but this is simply not true.

There are many, many reasons why our pension schemes are in trouble. It is not possible to point to just one or two factors. Responsibility is widely spread.

The Tory Government, under Nigel Lawson's Chancellorship, made a big mistake when it decided to tax pension fund surpluses in the late 1980's. These surpluses should have been allowed to build up, in order to cover schemes for times when markets turned down and/or when more and more people retired and needed to receive pensions from the scheme. Essentially, we have failed to let the surpluses build up and they are just not there when we need them.

After this, successive Tory Governments piled on more and more costs, thinking pension schemes would always be able to afford to pay more out, because they still had big surpluses. Of course, the reason pension funds had the surpluses was because not many people were actually drawing pensions yet (there were far more people contributing than numbers retired) and also because equity returns had been unusually high and scheme assets had grown faster than expected. But the pool of assets was too tempting for politicians to resist. They kept wanting to pile more costs onto pension schemes, (partly perhaps as a way of hoping to reduce the future costs to the Exchequer of supporting an ageing population), but in the process making pensions more and more expensive for companies to provide.

Then the Tories made the many mistakes surrounding the 1995 Pensions Act. This Act came into effect in 1997 and forced all employers to guarantee to pay fully index-linked pensions to all members (up to 5%). On top of the many other mandatory requirements (like spouse cover, preservation and revaluation for deferred members etc which had been introduced over the years) this added enormously to the costs of providing pensions. The measures are all, in themselves, excellent for members but, by making them compulsory, there was no 'safety valve' in the system. If investment returns fell, or if the employer's business was in trouble for a couple of years, they could not escape these extra costs.

The 1995 Act also introduced the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR) and regulations requiring more costs to prepare Statements of Investment Principles, pay for compliance and regulatory expenses etc. These measures again were intended to benefit members and make pensions 'safer', but added to the costs of running the schemes. In addition, of course, they had the terrible effect of leading people to believe that their scheme assets were safe if it was 'fully funded' on the MFR for example. The 1995 Act also introduced the iniquitous priority order rules, which mean people not yet retired can end up losing all their pension! No provision was made to protect pensions of those very close to retirement, or to protect monies transferred in from other employers' schemes.

Finally, of course, this Government removed ACT relief altogether - but this had already been reduced by the Tories during the 1990's, so it is not entirely fair to blame all on Gordon Brown.


http://www.rosaltmann.com/whathashappened.htm

Cheers


Did you miss this bit from your c&p source page Bru...?


"...All material on this page is subject to copyright and must not be reproduced without the author's permission..."



Laughing

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 18717
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by Irn Bru on Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:06 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:talking of pensions

The devastating impact of Labour's raid on pensions: The tax grab has cost workers £118bn since 1997. (Office for Budget Responsibility)

If you want to know the truth ask a pensions expert.

We used to have a pension system that was the envy of the rest of the world. This system is now crumbling and companies are moving away from final salary occupational pension provision. Not only this, but many thousands of people, who thought they had a 'guaranteed' pension and had been relying on their employer's pension promise, have suddenly found that this pension has disappeared.
The Press have been trying to blame Gordon Brown's removal of Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) relief in 1997 for the problems, but this is simply not true.

There are many, many reasons why our pension schemes are in trouble. It is not possible to point to just one or two factors. Responsibility is widely spread.

The Tory Government, under Nigel Lawson's Chancellorship, made a big mistake when it decided to tax pension fund surpluses in the late 1980's. These surpluses should have been allowed to build up, in order to cover schemes for times when markets turned down and/or when more and more people retired and needed to receive pensions from the scheme. Essentially, we have failed to let the surpluses build up and they are just not there when we need them.

After this, successive Tory Governments piled on more and more costs, thinking pension schemes would always be able to afford to pay more out, because they still had big surpluses. Of course, the reason pension funds had the surpluses was because not many people were actually drawing pensions yet (there were far more people contributing than numbers retired) and also because equity returns had been unusually high and scheme assets had grown faster than expected. But the pool of assets was too tempting for politicians to resist. They kept wanting to pile more costs onto pension schemes, (partly perhaps as a way of hoping to reduce the future costs to the Exchequer of supporting an ageing population), but in the process making pensions more and more expensive for companies to provide.

Then the Tories made the many mistakes surrounding the 1995 Pensions Act. This Act came into effect in 1997 and forced all employers to guarantee to pay fully index-linked pensions to all members (up to 5%). On top of the many other mandatory requirements (like spouse cover, preservation and revaluation for deferred members etc which had been introduced over the years) this added enormously to the costs of providing pensions. The measures are all, in themselves, excellent for members but, by making them compulsory, there was no 'safety valve' in the system. If investment returns fell, or if the employer's business was in trouble for a couple of years, they could not escape these extra costs.

The 1995 Act also introduced the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR) and regulations requiring more costs to prepare Statements of Investment Principles, pay for compliance and regulatory expenses etc. These measures again were intended to benefit members and make pensions 'safer', but added to the costs of running the schemes. In addition, of course, they had the terrible effect of leading people to believe that their scheme assets were safe if it was 'fully funded' on the MFR for example. The 1995 Act also introduced the iniquitous priority order rules, which mean people not yet retired can end up losing all their pension! No provision was made to protect pensions of those very close to retirement, or to protect monies transferred in from other employers' schemes.

Finally, of course, this Government removed ACT relief altogether - but this had already been reduced by the Tories during the 1990's, so it is not entirely fair to blame all on Gordon Brown.


http://www.rosaltmann.com/whathashappened.htm

Cheers


Did you miss this bit from your c&p source page Bru...?


"...All material on this page is subject to copyright and must not be reproduced without the author's permission..."



Laughing

What makes you think I don't have her permission?

Report me if you believe I don't...

Still true though isn't it Laughing

_________________
The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly.

Friedrich Hayek

In other words a bunch of cap-doffers and forelock tuggers.
avatar
Irn Bru
The Tartan terror. Keeper of the royal sporran. Chief Haggis Hunter

Posts : 7727
Join date : 2013-12-11
Location : Edinburgh

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by Tommy Monk on Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:40 am


Brown wasnt just taking a bit of tax from the surpluses... he was doing a full on smash and grab!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 18717
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by WhoseYourWolfie on Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:53 am

Idea

TATA Steel...

The pride of the Indian business/corporate world..
Part of a large conglomerate, which also has the Tata Motor corp. (Car and truck manufacturing..).
(One large shareholder was once reputedly the richest man in India (now he's down to 4th or 5th..);  and is currently Britain's wealthiest resident..).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group



The Devil, You Know wrote:
talking of pensions

The devastating impact of Labour's raid on pensions: The tax grab has cost workers £118bn since 1997. (Office for Budget Responsibility)


Idea

THE lies and misinformation simply spews forth every time you get anywhere near a keyboard,  don't they  ?!?       cyclops


Last edited by WhoseYourWolfie on Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:12 pm; edited 2 times in total

_________________
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.
The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.
Henry David Thoreau
avatar
WhoseYourWolfie

Posts : 3870
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 59
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

Post by Tommy Monk on Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:05 pm

The raid on private pensions by former Chancellor Gordon Brown has cost workers nearly £120 billion since 1997.

Staggering new figures show the move to end tax relief on pensions firms’ dividends has saved the Treasury around £7bn a year.

The controversial decision, one of Mr Brown’s first acts when he was appointed Chancellor, has long been blamed for accelerating the closure of thousands of final-salary pension schemes.

Before the move most pension funds had more than enough cash to pay the incomes of retirees.

Ros Altmann, a former Downing Street adviser on pensions, said Labour’s move was “the beginning of the end of the gold standard pension that British workers could rely on from their boss.”

She added: “This is money that has come out of people’s pensions. It paved the way for the end of final-salary schemes because it made them so much more expensive. They were suddenly unaffordable.”


https://www.sundaypost.com/news/political-news/browns-1997-pension-raid-has-cost-oaps-120bn/


Irn Bru wrote:If you want to know the truth ask a pensions expert.


Oh dear...!

The game's up Bru... you've been rumbled!!!

lol!




_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell
avatar
Tommy Monk

Posts : 18717
Join date : 2014-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum