Energy cap to go up again in October

[charles]

yes, but earlier "leave" was the promoted option. Employers were required to tell you about it.

[charles]

Mine, and I suspect others, provide the surviving partner (if there is one) with 50% pension, too.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Actually they are effectively free. Once to have the sane regulations in place.

Frankly if we simply dumped everything in the Marianas trench that would be all that would be needed.

But reprocessing is not in the overall cost context, particularly excessive. Maybe another 5%.

[SteveW]

It's not a zero cost to themselves. Not only have they paid NI, income tax, etc. during their working lives, but they continue to pay income tax on their pensions, VAT, insurance tax, etc.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well renewables are highly carbon intensive in terms of maintenance. Trucks and helicopters and boats all needed.

The point is simple though - if the government simply stopped interfering and let the market decide, then whatever technology used less of the increasingly expensive and diminishing supply of fossil fuel, would win.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Indeed. Has a board of trustees. Unlike a totally private one that Tim wants. Gawd knows why.

If you go to an independent advisor you'd do so expecting to take his advice?

[Dave Plowman (News]

Quite.

[charles]

But then you realise that the 'independent advisor' is looking at his own profit - not your savings

[Dave Plowman (News]

As are those like Tim that want to ban company pensions? Although this has pretty much happened anyway.

[alan_m]

No. Final salary pensions have disappeared. Money purchase pensions are still being offered where companies pay into them. The difference now is the pension is not now based on your final salary but on what your pension pot will buy in the market place when you retire. If investment rates and company dividends fall the pension will be lower.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not always. But they are constrained to be conservative in their recommendations.

My financial advisor had a fit when I promised him ' I would better 10% ROI' with my fund selection. 'But they could lose money as well' We were both right, and I have reduced my holdings in tech funds and upped the holdings in energy and minerals.

My mortgage broker has advised me to apply direct to a firm that doesnt manage brokers, even though he wont get commission (if I take that deal he will though, 'ex gratia')

There are some good people out there.

[Tim Streater]

Well that's a step in the right direction. Why do I think these final salary defined benefits etc pensions are a bad thing? One, because a person who changes jobs a number of times would end up with a number of tiny pots, second because they are Ponzi schemes as we are seeing with companies going bust and unable to top up their pension pots, third because they seem to be able to be raided by the likes of Maxwell.

You should, throughout your working life, pay into your own pension scheme yourself. And if a company wants to make a matching payment, that should be allowed and the company can use that as an incentive to attract staff. But it's your pot, and when you leave that company they stop paying into your pot and have nothing further to do with it. Where your pot actually resides is your choice - a traditional annuity or a SIP, and who with - up to you.

[Fredxx]

The point is simpler still, to attempt to release less CO2 into the atmosphere. Economics don't come into it apart from subsidies.

[Andrew]

Do the maths. A couple with just 2 kids needs a family income that would put one person into higher rate tax. This is to cover the cost of 'free' education (£65K per child from 5 to 18), free NHS, child benefit, blah blah.

Have more than 2 kids or earn average to low income and that family is not paying any net tax at all (Why do you think we have £2 trillion in national debt?)

Pension contributions are free of tax !!. The tax that would have been paid at the time of earning is simply *deferred* until the pension is in payment.

Only the top 25% of taxpayers actually pays enough in total tax to cover their retirement costs, and many massively more than needed for their own retirement. The other 75% are freeloading (=£2 trillion in debt).

[Andrew]

It is no longer possible for a pension fund to be raided like Maxwell did, but if the fund has to support a large number of people who have existing accrued final-salary pensions then there will be times when keeping the pension fund solvent could bankrupt the company.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Just be honest, Tim. You are jealous of those who do have a decent final salary scheme. You think they should be only for CEOs etc - not the rank and file.

[Andy Burns]

Given the volatility of investments over the course of a lifetime, I don't think anyone should have one ... and I speak as someone who has part of my pension in a DB scheme.

[4587Joey]

There is no 'fund' with all the cash in it to pay all pensions out of because it isn't even possible to know how long each pension will be paid for.

[4587Joey]

Wrong, most obviously with those whose entire income is benefits.

Because the politicians choose not to raise enough taxes every year.

See above.

[Bev]

Ha!

Only if they start taking money out of your bank - otherwise its a smaller income but not a loss.