Jump to content

pension rights


barry luxton

Recommended Posts

All,

 

Unlike Vagabond and me some of you may have future concerns. Those of us who are older are very lucky. There were 6 - 8 workers for every retiree for us to slush around. It's easy for us to be sanctimonious on a full belly.

 

I have put up the "ground rules" (from a British source). If there are thieves involved it's a matter of who's ox has been gored. We are, after all, spending YOUR money. We've long since spent our own.

 

http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=116190

 

Phone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

That sounds like an echo chamber for the government spin at the time.

 

What technical term you use to describe it is irrelevant - the net result was that contributions bought less pensions - in effect a levy.

 

Fortunately it happened too late to affect my pension, but people still paying for their pensions now are going to get rather less than they originally expected. The fact that pension industry jackals are ripping off future pensioners is no excuse for government vultures joining in.

Not spin and not irrelevant. Pensions are complicated. Misrepresenting the situation does not help anyone. But I do agree that the pension industry makes immense sums at our expense, and now the govt is genuinely reneging on public sector pensions.

 

bluedun,

 

Are you suggesting pension headquarters buildings are being built by the benefactors?

No phone. Nothing in my post mentioned such a thing.

Edited by bluedun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Not spin

 

2 not irrelevant

 

3. Pensions are complicated.

 

4/ Misrepresenting the situation does not help anyone.

1/ So you believe Gordon Brown ?

 

2/ Getting less pension is relevant, what sophistry providers and government go through to "explain" it is irrelevant. :rtfm:

A shortfall is a shortfall.

 

3/ I found my own three pensions easy enough to work out, despite obfuscations like " it is calculated on twenty-three seventy-ninths of your gross income" and as much jargon as they could get away with. As I said, I had to confront all three providers before they would admit their calculations were wrong.

 

4/ Based on my own experience, I have not misrepresented anything. Retirees from now on will be getting much less in real terms than I got in 1999. True or false ? As Phone said, he and I may be considered "lucky" , but that doesn't help present workers. Perhaps future pensioners will be told "Sorry, there isn't any - Phone and Vagabond have had it all" :icecream::icecream:

 

 

RNLI Governor

 

World species 471 : UK species 105 : English species 95 .

Certhia's world species - 215

Eclectic "husband and wife combined" world species 501

 

"Nothing matters very much, few things matter at all" - Plato

...only things like fresh bait and cold beer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

1/ So you believe Gordon Brown ?

 

2/ Getting less pension is relevant, what sophistry providers and government go through to "explain" it is irrelevant. :rtfm:

A shortfall is a shortfall.

 

3/ I found my own three pensions easy enough to work out, despite obfuscations like " it is calculated on twenty-three seventy-ninths of your gross income" and as much jargon as they could get away with. As I said, I had to confront all three providers before they would admit their calculations were wrong.

 

4/ Based on my own experience, I have not misrepresented anything. Retirees from now on will be getting much less in real terms than I got in 1999. True or false ? As Phone said, he and I may be considered "lucky" , but that doesn't help present workers. Perhaps future pensioners will be told "Sorry, there isn't any - Phone and Vagabond have had it all"

Not a question of believing anyone; that is the situation. Anyway, sounds like you had a defined benefit scheme (the best one) and so wouldn't have been affected by the tax credit thing. You really did work through the best period for pensions. As you say, things are getting steadily worse, but GB is a red herring. Look at the financial sector and the present govt for your targets.

 

 

bluedun,

 

I was trying to be clever (sometimes it doesn't work - sometimes it results in hoof in mouth syndrome).

 

Phone

No problem Phone. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GB is a red herring.

Well, I will agree with you there. Red as the most rabid Trotskyite, and something very fishy about him and his financial "prudence"

 

......and the targets Yes, the financial sector. But it was a Labour Government that allowed them to go headlong into toxic high-risk loans. The responsibility of a government is to govern - which amongst other things means fiscal care and attention. Both the Blair and the Brown administrations failed to provide that.

 

.

 

 

RNLI Governor

 

World species 471 : UK species 105 : English species 95 .

Certhia's world species - 215

Eclectic "husband and wife combined" world species 501

 

"Nothing matters very much, few things matter at all" - Plato

...only things like fresh bait and cold beer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

Ho ho, no need to ask about your politics vagabond. I think it is probably pointless to discuss this topic, but I'll just point out that the credit bubble was a worldwide phenomenon, and that the origins of unfettered financial markets was during the Thatcher govt (Big Bang and all that - remember?). As for GB being red - pale blue more like. These topics do tend to bring out the tabloid politics, and the tabloids do a pretty effective job of painting a right-wing bluewash over the whole messy business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html

The other reason was the pension funds themselves having "breaks"

Making sure its not tabloid biased

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6521305.stm

If someones removing 5 billion a year from the pot someone has to cough up or lose out to make up the short fall ,and it wont be the shareholders ,the board or the trustees.....

Whatever ever labour said to blame the preceeding conservative gov for the mess was rubbish otherwise why didnt they fix it in the 18 years they run the country?

Edited by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All,

 

It's really not all that complicated. The British formula used is on page 9 of the URL I suggested in post 21.

 

For the life of me - I can't understand why you guys are always skirting the "FACTS". You should start following my example.

 

Phone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluedun

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html

The other reason was the pension funds themselves having "breaks"

Making sure its not tabloid biased

 

Pension holidays they called them - i.e. money for the corporations while the accounting was in their favour

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html

The other reason was the pension funds themselves having "breaks"

Making sure its not tabloid biased

..

Whatever ever labour said to blame the preceeding conservative gov for the mess was rubbish otherwise why didnt they fix it in the 18 years they run the country?

 

Keep reading the Telegraph chester. It's always Labour's fault there, even when it's really everybody's fault.

 

 

All,

 

It's really not all that complicated. The British formula used is on page 9 of the URL I suggested in post 21.

Don't bring financial maths into this Phone; they'll all blow a fuse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.