PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th May 2017, 11:20   #9421 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,617
Once-upon-a-time everybody was fairly secure with a final salary pension; until Gordon Brown got his sticky fingers on them.

I was lucky: My company kept it going and funded it for us who were already in their scheme. Others watched it all fall apart.
Fareastdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 12:53   #9422 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
Are you factoring inflation and tax into that?
And the capital growth of the equity investments? It should never be exhausted at £40K PA
Wingswinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 12:57   #9423 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 62
Chances of govt offering a pension buy out?

Somewhere close to or less than zero I would say

Two reasons

It needs cash up front.
And lots of people will just blow the cash and throw themselves back on the state benefit system. Unless you built some very complex and expensive mechanism around the buy outs to make sure the cash could not be splurged.

Someone hasn't thought this through.
Not even labour have this one in their manifesto.
mrangryofwarlingham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 13:24   #9424 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrangryofwarlingham View Post
Somewhere close to or less than zero I would say

Two reasons

It needs cash up front.
And lots of people will just blow the cash and throw themselves back on the state benefit system. Unless you built some very complex and expensive mechanism around the buy outs to make sure the cash could not be splurged.

Someone hasn't thought this through.
Not even labour have this one in their manifesto.
I agree it needs cash up front but that isn't necessarily a reason to bin the idea. You could agree and formula where contributions were made over time. I don't think the rules would need to be too complex. You would have to have an existing dc pension scheme into which the value would be transferred. The existing scheme has sufficient rules to prevent splurging.
Groundbased is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 14:16   #9425 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
Are you factoring inflation and tax into that?
Inflation will build the investment as well so therefore it become irrelevant on both sides.

Tax also as if you have a fixed income you will end up paying less tax year by year as personal allowances and tax rates change.
racedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 14:30   #9426 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
I could see a buyout from the state pension being a reasonable idea. You can already transfer a DB scheme to a DC one effectively a buyout of your future final salary benefits in a lump sum to be invested in your pension pot. In this case from a regulatory perspective you have to demonstrate that there is no disadvantage to the client to do so, and in the majority of cases I think that is hard to do. So the Government would have to be sure that the person was going to be better off waiving their state pension than keeping it to avoid future "mis-selling" claims and liabilities. Ultimately I think this will become an option as there is little other choice.
I would love that idea - however you have to factor in what the Government do with those who would go down that route then blow the lot and end up with nothing. Do they then allow them to starve or do they start paying out means tested welfare - if the latter then the government are no better off financially, in fact worse as they have already paid out the pension lump sum.
Jet II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 14:38   #9427 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrangryofwarlingham View Post
Somewhere close to or less than zero I would say

Two reasons

It needs cash up front.
And lots of people will just blow the cash and throw themselves back on the state benefit system. Unless you built some very complex and expensive mechanism around the buy outs to make sure the cash could not be splurged.

Someone hasn't thought this through.
Not even labour have this one in their manifesto.
Nope it doesn't and already covered
Quote:
Edit............... Potentially give this as an increased personal allowance would reduce tax take but could be split over number of years working to retirement - 4 years.
Pension of £140 a week based on Life Expectancy of 12 years from when retire based on triple lock would give someone £102k. Discount it back to today and it is worth £72k.

Someone aged 50 offered that to be added to their personal pension over the time to retirement and money via HMRC goes directly each month to pension plan.

Assumming average pension plan makes a return of greater than 2.5% a year then people with pension plan would be better off. Caveat of no drawdown on this before pension age.
racedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 14:41   #9428 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 4,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
I agree it needs cash up front but that isn't necessarily a reason to bin the idea. You could agree and formula where contributions were made over time. I don't think the rules would need to be too complex. You would have to have an existing dc pension scheme into which the value would be transferred. The existing scheme has sufficient rules to prevent splurging.
Doesn't need cash up front, fund it over the rest of working life of person............... not really that complex to work out and using HMRC divert what is required per person into a DC system with a non drawdown clause.
racedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 20:34   #9429 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,622
You will doubtless recall the exchange I had with KnC regarding his complaining about Conservative welfare cuts and I providing demonstrable proof most of these had originated and taken place under the 3 Labour Blair administrations. His response was to suggest the latest planned changes were especially draconian and inequitous.

It is interesting to note that, as reported in his organ of choice for their truthful reporting, that according to their own manifesto for this election, Labour will proceed to implement all the cuts proposed in the last Osborne Conservative budget. Unless, of course, the Labour manifesto is a fabrication and, as Churchill phrased it, "a bodyguard of lies" to hide their true intentions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ion-foundation
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 05:44   #9430 (permalink)
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
You will doubtless recall the exchange I had with KnC regarding his complaining about Conservative welfare cuts and I providing demonstrable proof most of these had originated and taken place under the 3 Labour Blair administrations. His response was to suggest the latest planned changes were especially draconian and inequitous.

It is interesting to note that, as reported in his organ of choice for their truthful reporting, that according to their own manifesto for this election, Labour will proceed to implement all the cuts proposed in the last Osborne Conservative budget. Unless, of course, the Labour manifesto is a fabrication and, as Churchill phrased it, "a bodyguard of lies" to hide their true intentions.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ion-foundation
My esteemed thanks to ORAC for the above article.....and a shameless ( too dry for most ) bit of self promotion to boot.

The source, as you correctly say, is indeed noted for factual reporting, not forgetting the subliminal brainwashing of course, and, although I am sure this was not your intent, to confirm a concept I may have mentioned previously, albeit one not fully, if at all understood by all the chums on here, called......pragmatism. The Guardian, after all, is invariably accused of only ever publishing one political viewpoint.

Nice choice of analogy however....Anthony Cave-Brown I believe, this from reading the authors name on the book in front of me which I've had a for quite a few years....

Now, about the Resolution Foundation.....who, by a happy coincidence is the current C.E.O and what is his former occupation ?

That, and an astounding revelation, that George was in fact a Labour MP !....George, you may recall, had a certain input concerning welfare cuts, the ones now affecting a few million people who, terribly inconveniently, actually suffer from a range of debilitating conditions, family circumstances and are thus more than vulnerable to such cuts.....although as we know, on here that is, those suffering from either of these factors only ever have themselves to blame and thus can be conveniently labelled as..." benefit scroungers "....a term which has grown in popularity amongst Mail devotees in recent years....reality never being allowed to permeate their idyllic lifestyles.

The winners and losers of April's tax and benefit changes

More bad news, at least for those whose conscience is, seemingly wracked with the dilemma of pensioner benefits.

The bus pass...not that many would even contemplate using such a mode of travel because clearly it makes much more sense to flaunt your fiscal standing by using, and paying for, the car, rather than, erm, travel for free...is not granted automatically, you have to apply for one...the senior railcard..true, a payment is required, but, this is easily offset if you use the rail network to your advantage and the savings can be considerable, all it takes is a bit of research and some basic planning....and finally, the state pension, again, not paid automatically, you have to apply.

Phew ! what a relief !..no personal decision making required !...in keeping with, for some, their working life.
Krystal n chips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 06:36   #9431 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,622
What's this, shooting the messenger because you don't like the message KnC? Regardless of his background, surely the Grauniad would not have published the article unless they were happy the figures are true?

Regarding the freebies for the retired, a slightly confused message. Is in your contention they should remain as universal benefits and rely on the good nature if the rich you evidently so despise not to claim them?

I note you neglect to mention the TV licence. It is amusing that, as a result of the last settlement allowing it to be increased, the free licence for the elderly will mean less increase for the luvvies - they are now urging that it should be means tested!! One rule for the rest and another for the luvvies obviously.......

Free TV licences could be means tested for over 75s

Millions of over-75s could lose their free TV licences, as the BBC considers whether to stop giving the benefit to better-off pensioners.

Supporters of the corporation, including Lord Bragg and Lord Puttnam, urged the BBC to means- test the perk, worth £147 a year, when it takes over responsibility from the government in 2020 for funding free licences. They believe that Theresa May’s decision to means-test winter fuel payments for pensioners has given the BBC the opportunity to follow suit. If the BBC does not restrict the perk, it faces losing £750m in licence-fee income from 2020.

Bragg, 77, who pays voluntarily as part of a campaign by celebrities to persuade better-off pensioners to support the BBC, said: “It would be a very sensible idea.” Puttnam, 76, who chaired an inquiry into public service TV last year, said the BBC would be “silly” not to talk to the government about means-testing free licences.......

Last edited by ORAC; 21st May 2017 at 10:58.
ORAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:15   #9432 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 624
I came to the conclusion this morning, watching Damien Green on the Andrew Marr show, that I would rather see Labour in power, under Jeremy Corbyn, than a Conservative Government with people like him in it.

He must have lost the Tories the vote of everyone watching. His attempts to defend the unbelievably stupid Tory Manifesto policy on end-of-life care costs were ridiculous. As was his almost comic prevarication about who exactly would lose the winter fuel allowance.

But then, I can't vote for Labour, even holding my nose. We have a very strong independent candidate in our neck of the woods, so I'll vote for her.

That policy, and people like Damien Green, have probably lost the Tories any hope of a good majority, and have possibly lost them any majority at all.

I wonder which bright spark in TM's office thought it would be a good idea to divert attention from Brexit by introducing a policy that takes away from all home-owning voters (aka Tory voters) pretty much everything they hoped to leave to their children, if they need care in old age, as they almost certainly will?

By the way, I'm unimpressed by wealthy luvvies, many of whom obtain much of their wealth from grossly excessive payments from the BBC, trying to persuade me to give the BBC financial support! The licence fee is an anachronism that needs to be replaced now by making people who want to watch it pay to do so if they choose to, at the price the BBC considers fair value. That might make people wonder whether or not the BBC really needs hundreds, thousands even, of "managers" with absurd titles, doing SFA while being paid mega-salaries.

Last edited by old,not bold; 21st May 2017 at 10:27.
old,not bold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:28   #9433 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 34
The Conservative social care policy?

Fair or a disincentive to save for your old age?

The Bow Group, which is the Tory party’s oldest think tank, have described the proposal as the “biggest stealth tax in history”. Chairman Ben Harris-Quinney said:

“It is a tax on death and on inheritance. It will mean that in the end, the government will have taken the lions share of a lifetime earnings in taxes. If enacted, it is likely to represent the biggest stealth tax in history and when people understand that they will be leaving most of their estate to the government, rather than their families, the Conservative Party will experience a dramatic loss of support.”
BehindBlueEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:30   #9434 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 624
As mentioned in another forum just now, it has probably cost the Tories the majority they were hoping for, and might well cost them any majority at all.

Which goon dreamed it up? I think we should be told.
old,not bold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:33   #9435 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,742
The NASTY PARTY.
pr00ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:34   #9436 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 34
Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans - BBC News

Sounds like they're pretty committed to the policy.
BehindBlueEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:39   #9437 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,742
The stubborn, uncaring, dogmatic NASTY PARTY.
pr00ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:40   #9438 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 73
Posts: 1,327
So, at present if you have to go into a care home, you will lose all your cash except for 23K.
Under Tory plans, you will be provided for at home instead, losing all your cash except for 100K.
What's nasty about that?
jindabyne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:42   #9439 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Any alternative does not bear contemplating. This is what becomes of having no credible opposition.
Though I do detect a smidgen of political bias here.
Avitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2017, 10:52   #9440 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,742
jindabyne,

Try telling that to the thousands upon thousands of property owning middle income Tories who are now faced with losing their house that was intended to be their childrens legacy.

The uncaring, dogmatic, just shot themselves in the foot NASTY PARTY
pr00ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:47.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1