"Not enough in the pension pot" my arse

[pilchardman]

Why are we getting this drip, drip, drip that the UK "can't afford" pensions? The report today seems to be the latest in the campaign to soften us up to the idea that previously unpalatble measures are "inevitable".

Except that the pension pot is only getting smaller because, like Bob Maxwell, successive chancellors raid it to fund other activities!

* Britain spends less than 5% of national income on pensions, below half the spending of other EU countries. (A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions, DSS 1998).


* In 1979 the basic state pension was 23% of average earnings. In 2004, it is now worth less than 16% of average earnings.

* The average occupational pension pays out just £4000 a year.
(Income Data Services Bulletin 200, 2001)

If we put our minds to it, we - the 4th wealthiest in the world - could make lifebetter for our pensioners. So let's not have this "we can't afford it" bullshit. We can, and we have to afford it.


On a personal note, I went to see my Dad, a single pensioner, today. It was a bitterly cold day. He was asleep in his armchair wearing an outdoor coat. He was worried about putting the heating on. FFS, what is this society coming to if we think we can't afford to do something about that sort of state of affairs?

 

[tobyjug]

Without people saving more, or paying more tax or retiring later, a lot of people are going to be begging in couple of decades when they retire.

 

[butchersapron]

£80 Billion a year in rich-man/company tax avoidace. Some left over. Build and staff schools and hospitals with it.

 

[pilchardman]

Without people saving more, or paying more tax or retiring later, a lot of people are going to be begging in couple of decades when they retire.

Aye, that's the line we're being fed. Look through it and see where this scare story is coming from.

What we're told went wrong is that actuaries decades ago miscalculated how long we'd be living by now (and, 15 - 20 years from now). What actually went wrong is that the NI contribution was never hypothecated. What actually went wrong is that business doesn't want to pay for its ex-workforce. What actually went wrong is that the government doesn't see pensioners as a spending priority. (We could spend what Germany spends - 11% of GDP - without raising taxes by rearranging priorities).

Why are we going to swallow this line that all we can do is either save more or retire later? What's wrong with some collective responsibility here?

 

[butchersapron]

Without people saving more, or paying more tax or retiring later, a lot of people are going to be begging in couple of decades when they retire.

Tax who? I'm in favour of more tax - taxes on the rich.

 

[pilchardman]

Tax who? I'm in favour of more tax - taxes on the rich.

Absolutely; tax and spend. Tax fairly and spend wisely. Tax the rich and spend on a decent life for pensioners.

 

[butchersapron]

The ease with witrh this shit is swallowed..by those if effects....

 

[Barking_Mad]

Why not tax the massive multi-nationals...........ahh forget it.

 

[herman]

There is no pension pot and to my knowledge there has never been such a thing.

The money that is paid into pensions is re circulated. Neither the state nor the private sector pensions have saved money for anyone. There is no piggy bank administered on our behalf.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is no pension pot and to my knowledge there has never been such a thing.

The money that is paid into pensions is re circulated. Neither the state nor the private sector pensions have saved money for anyone. There is no piggy bank administered on our behalf.

That's what Pilch is saying. The premise behind NI was that contributions would be "ring-fenced"/hypothecated. That didn't happen.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold the govt to account for what, to all intents and purposes, was misrepresentation and mismanagement of public finances on a grand scale.

 

[oi2002]

I recommend the Belfast soloution: Eat Ulster Frys and, die before your 65.

 

[herman]

That's what Pilch is saying. The premise behind NI was that contributions would be "ring-fenced"/hypothecated. That didn't happen.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't hold the govt to account for what, to all intents and purposes, was misrepresentation and mismanagement of public finances on a grand scale.

Agreed entirely.

But what pension mismanagement is illustrating is that they are not betraying people 20 years from now. The betrayals are happening now.

We are funding todays pensioners and the corporates are creaming off the top.

Too many of my colleagues talk about saving for the future when I happen to know they are doing no such thing. They just think they are doing so.

Potentially the NI/State pension model is the most secure but the New Labour communitarian alternative to neo-Thatcherism offers no comfort on this whatsoever.

 

[El Jugador]

I reckon taxes will eventually be raised to cover the problem, because when we're all pensioners there'll be so many of us that our votes will make a big difference in elections - and the politicians will have no choice but to bend to our will or fail to get elected!

(...Presuming of course that by then the political climate hasn't changed too much in the direction of solely promoting the interests of Jack-who's-all-right, which it sadly appears to be doing at the moment)

...Or another solution could be to deliberately start a huge influenza epidemic that kills off the majority of old people, thus vastly reducing their burden on the state - It could even be administered through the old peoples' annual 'flu vaccinations!

 

[pilchardman]

Potentially the NI/State pension model is the most secure but the New Labour communitarian alternative to neo-Thatcherism offers no comfort on this whatsoever.

I'd put "alternative" in inverted commas, but otherwise I agree with you.

The point is, though, that we can either give in and say: "Oh, well. That's that then", as we're being softened up to do. Or we can fight to put real alternative views in the public domain.

 

[kropotkin]

this is fucking incredible!

Andrew Marr and the BBC are currently telling me that there are only FOUR options:

1 work longer
2 force us to spend less
3 higher income tax
4 accept poor pentioners

Ha! the option of

5 tax the people who benefit from work without working
no longer even exists!!

 

[herman]

I'd put "alternative" in inverted commas, but otherwise I agree with you.

The point is, though, that we can either give in and say: "Oh, well. That's that then", as we're being softened up to do. Or we can fight to put real alternative views in the public domain.

I suppose in my use of the word "altrenative" I should qualify that a little.

The difference offered between the parties are between two differing visions of Victorian values. The classical liberal and the communitarian values of the Christian socialists of the 19thC. Either way self reliance seem to run through the discourse.

The idea of national insurance in any form seems to have fallen off the agenda.

Since this does not seem to be a problem for those of working age, as comparing pension provisoin seems to be all the rage, this is something that needs to be shifted way up the political agenda.

Its too easy to think of the elderly as a drain on resources without considering the effects that time has on all of us. For those opposed to state provision I would say we reap what we sow. If we place part of our income in the hands of those who only seek to profit from us then don't be suprised when they piss off with our money.

 

[butchersapron]

"Its too easy to think of the elderly as a drain on resources without considering the effects that time has on all of us"
Indeed - or the profits they've made for the boss. Take it from them.

 

[kropotkin]

indeed!
This really pisses me off: it is an issue that effects EVERYONE but those who are too rich for it to matter. It unites everyone around common hardships and a common fear. It is incredible that it can't even be countenanced that our fucking profits couldn't be used to get us out of poverty!

 

[butchersapron]

You mocking my speccy 'indeed'!?

 

[pilchardman]

Its too easy to think of the elderly as a drain on resources without considering the effects that time has on all of us. For those opposed to state provision I would say we reap what we sow. If we place part of our income in the hands of those who only seek to profit from us then don't be suprised when they piss off with our money.

Again, I'm agreeing with you.

If I can pull out that first bit, though. I think it's worth dwelling on. "It's too easy to think of the elderly as a drain on resources". Absolutely. In Animal Farm, the big horse. What was his name? Anyway, he dreamed of retiring to a meadow, but ended up going to the knackers. That's what we're doing to our pensioners; sucking the life out of them until their economic usefulness is diminished, then sending them to the knackers.

Charming.

 

[herman]

"Its too easy to think of the elderly as a drain on resources without considering the effects that time has on all of us"
Indeed - or the profits they've made for the boss. Take it from them.

I would be interested to see some statistics posted here on this but I am sure I read somewhere that a major propotion of private capital invested in in our economy comes from pension funds. If this is the case then it presents working people with an awful problem, possibly one with parallels in employee share ownership.

To increase your pension you would have to seek the highest return for the capital invested. To do so you would have to maximise returns on the investment. So come the end of the year, when inflation is taken into account do you a/ demand pay rise or b/ hope for higher return from your pension. Its putting workers in the situation of being in competition with ourselves.

 

[butchersapron]

" In Animal Farm, the big horse. What was his name? "

Coxsucker i think.

 

[pilchardman]

Coxsucker i think.

I'm sure you've read a different version. Does the farmer's daughter feature heavily in yours?

 

[herman]

Clover?

 

[pilchardman]

I've just got my copy. It's Boxer.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm sure you've read a different version. Does the farmer's daughter feature heavily in yours?

There's a book!?

[Edit:apologies - back to the debate.]

 

[pilchardman]

C'mon now. This is a serious issue. The horse thing was only an analogy. That's how I talk. I'm like Jesus in that way.

 

[sihhi]

To increase your pension you would have to seek the highest return for the capital invested. To do so you would have to maximise returns on the investment. So come the end of the year, when inflation is taken into account do you a/ demand pay rise or b/ hope for higher return from your pension. Its putting workers in the situation of being in competition with ourselves.

I was wondering about this too.
Company share schemes are controlled by bosses Yes/No? Does anyone know?
And what about people who don't work long enough to get company schemes- or have to work in temp agencies etc etc...

 

[herman]

So what is the problems-

1. young people couldn't give a flying fuck
2. the already pensioners political clout is reduced to the ballot box.
3. the pension system is used as a tool of oppression.

lets take it from there...

 

[sihhi]

So what is the problems-

1. young people couldn't give a flying fuck
2. the already pensioners political clout is reduced to the ballot box.
3. the pension system is used as a tool of oppression.

lets take it from there...

What about all the pensioners threatening non-payement of council taxes?