Pensions at risk...petition for a new law

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

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

All my, our pensionz have been doing very well for years.

Why would I wanna give money to a con trick which is what Tata is.

Those of us who have worked cannot forever bail out every Tom, Dick and Abdul.

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)

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

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..."

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..."

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

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

Still true though isn't it

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

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)

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

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!!!