OT: The future of EV charging?

[michael adams]

That's interesting. So as you say, company pensions schemes being administered by highly paid professionals on behalf of the trustees of company pensions schemes are unable, for some unaccountable reason, to provide the pensions which those schemes were expressly designed to provide.

Instead of which, according to you, private individuals without the resources to employ the sort of highly paid professionals working on behalf of company schemes - should somehow find some tax efficient and foolproof means of providing for their own retirement in some way.

Which of course conveniently overlooks the real reason apart from straightforward criminality (Maxwell) and downright greed (Philip Green) for the failure of Company Schemes. Which is the prioritising of short term shareholder value - as reflected in headline grabbing annual profits and dividend payments which make the headlines - over the level of contributions to Company Pensions which would be necessary but not legally required to maintain their viability. Something which never made the headlines. of course, until it was to late

And before you jump out of your pram over Gordon Brown's abolition of tax credits on dividends in the 1997 Budget(which impacted on pension funds); this was only thought necessary in the first place because of companies prioritising short term shareholder value (again) by paying high dividends over investing profits back into their companies for the longer term. Short- termism at its worst. Whereas had they re-invested those dividends, profitability would have increased even further in the longer term which would have been reflected in higher share prices. To repeat "in the longer term". Trends in which, pensions funds of all people should supposedly be in the best position to take advantage of. Instead of which incompetent and bone idle fund managers were happy to sit back and rely on short term share dividends rather than doing the job they were being paid to do. Although of course its a lot easier to blame Gordon Brown for their lack of foresight.

Of course you have. With the usual distinct absence of real evidence that you actually understand anything that you're suppose to be talking about

To wit:

The only reason someone such as yourself could ever regard "index linked" schemes as "gold plated" is presumably because you're suffering from the delusion that indexes, the FTSE 100, the FTSE All Share, the S&P 500, NASDAQ, the Dow etc can only ever go up, and never down.

michael adams

...

[Dave Plowman (News]

Yup - there are a lot of employers around.

They certainly were if they hit company profits. After all, the workforce don't contribute to those. Only the shareholders.

Back to Philip Green again?

And let's make paying tax a personal choice as well.

Sounds like jealousy to me. ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News]

Quite. Some of us paid a considerable percentage of our salary into a company pension scheme. That, and the company contribution (part of your remuneration package), was well able to build up a pot in exactly the same way as doing it privately.

But such schemes for working people don't suit good Tories like our Mr Streater. Where decent pensions are only for managers and above. Except where there is a fast buck to be made from them.

[michael adams]

I'm still puzzled as to why Strata should characterise Index based pensions as Ponzi schemes. If you leave a final salary pension schemes say 20 years early then obviously the percentage of that final salary you're going to get on maturity is reduced by well over a half as compound interest is taken into account. But on my understanding anyway your pension pot is then invested in Index Linked Gilts - about the most unexciting investment there is, so that what you'll get is that reduced percentage of your final salary of 20 years ago adjusted for RPI inflation . Where the "Ponzi scheme" comes in, I don't know. Which is why I assumed he was talking about pensions based on index tracker funds, which as I pointed out, can go down as well as up.

Streater "may" have been in a very advantageous position in respect of accumulating his own personal private pension at certain points in his career. Or equally possible I suppose, he could and should have been, only things didn't quite work out as planned. That's the only reason I can think of anyway, why he seems so "obsessed" with other people's pensions. Everyone is living too long - which is something which is going to affect everyone except the sort of Tory sleazebags Streater supports, who've been awarding themselves tax free multimillion pensions on the quiet.

michael adams

...

[Dave Plowman (News]

I know quite a few who have decided they can do better than their company pension. Due to all the advertising etc around. So removed it and placed it elsewhere. And all regretted it.

Meaning Mr Streater's mantra that a company pension scheme can't be well run and it should be left to the private sector a typical Tory principle that only the private sector should be allowed to run such things the nonsense it is.

But then he likely makes his living advising others what to do with their money.

[John Rumm]

"Designed to provide" based on a certain level of contributions from the employer. If they are not forthcoming, or the employer misappropriates the funds set aside for pension provision is it surprising that the pension does not perform as expected?

Ah, you may have missed it. There are things called personal pensions - they have been around for a bit. Not difficult to open, and someone will take care of all the technical stuff for you.

[Tim Streater]

As has just been pointed out, it relies on company contributions (so it's a Ponzi scheme). Which may no longer be forthcoming cos the company went bust or nicked the pension fund. And the pension model was unsustainable.

A private individual should be able to set up a pension pot with the likes of Aviva. They should be able to pay into that throughout their life. That way they have one scheme rather than their pot being spread over many small schemes. the employer should be able to choose whether to offer that they also pay into the scheme to top up the employees pot. When the employee leave the company, it stops paying in.

Such schemes should only be available from pension companies, it should be illegal for others to be involved; it's not their core business anyway. The employee chooses when to draw the pension, and its value is based on what they and their various employees paid in.

This is what the overall structure should be. It avoids companies being weighed down by pension liabilities, and eliminates the Maxwells and Greens.

[snip bollocks]

[michael adams]

Er, no.

It's you yourself who rather seems to have missed my point. The trustees of large pension funds need to pay for the best available advice given the funds for which they are responsible.

How is a private individual supposed to be able to secure a similar standard of advice ? Or know where to look? When the outcome of any such decision, whether any chosen advisor is truly competent/incompetent honest/dishonest may not become apparent for another ten or twenty years ?

Never mind the "technical stuff". Any fool can learn all that for themselves within ten minutes, assuming they can actually read.

Its knowing where, when, and how to invest the money that's the problem. To which there is no simple answer. Otherwise pension fund managers would be all out of a job and the trustees would be doing it for themselves.

michael adams

...

[Dave Plowman (News]

But that assumes a private pension scheme is always 100% efficient and honest?

The company schemes I know about all have trustees. It would soon become obvious if payments weren't being made etc. And doesn't the law now prevent (or attempt to prevent) dishonest employers abusing their pension scheme?

Have you fallen into the Streater trap of thinking they all must be perfect and honest, but company ones incompetent?

[Dave Plowman (News]

You think a private scheme incapable of being dishonest?

Which planet are you on today?

[michael adams]

Eh ? A Ponzi scheme is one in which payouts are only sustainable by the recruitment of new investors. As soon as the scheme can no longer attract new investors, and sufficient existing investors want to cash in, it goes bust. Its a very specific method of operation.

The fact that company pensions rely on contributions from successful companies which would otherwise contribute to profits doesn't make them Ponzi schemes. Pension contributions are simply another charge on the business. Again this doesn't make the model unsustainable. Why should it ?

Again the fact that companies can fail is neither here nor there. On that basis you may as well claim, again wrongly, that the whole of the Stock Market is one great Ponzi scheme. As all quoted share prices are dependant one each and every one of those quoted companies not going bankrupt and ceasing trading. This hardly makes the Stock Market model unsustainable, either.

As a matter of interest what were your criteria for choosing that particular company/

Let's just hope that they chose the right company at the outset.

Its difficult enough choosing bonds which keep you locked in for the next

5 years. Choosing a pension provider for the whole of the next 40 years ?

Contrary to what you appear to think most company pension schemes are already operated by pension companies, selected and appointed by the trustees

The situation at present to which you object appears to be roughly as follows.

Employees are inducted into a company scheme where each month a) the employee makes a contribution and b) the employer makes a contribution.

So that each month the employer is required to make a pension contribution in respect of each of their employees, which would otherwise contribute to their annual profits. And yet at some unspecified point in the future, this somehow leads to their all of a sudden being weighed down with "unsustainable" liabilities.

You do see the problem some people might find with this account, I take it ?

The fact that pensions aren't portable as between employers is indeed a problem which needs to be addressed, but that apparently isn't your main concern.

You have yet to explain where "Index linking" comes into any of this, BTW.

michael adams

...

[John Rumm]

Not really - a pension can fail to live up to expectations for all sorts of reasons.

They have tightened rules somewhat, after some of the more cases of abuse.

Why would you think that? Michael seemed to be suggesting that the only alternative to a company plan is to roll your sleeves up and start making a bunch of individual investments yourself. While that might be a good move for some sophisticated investors - it's probably not right for most people. I was just highlighting the reality there are are plenty of personal plan providers that will manage a plan for you, making the investors task no more onerous than being in a company plan. Are some better than other, yup sure - same as company plans.

[Dave Plowman (News]

I simply dunno why some are hostile to company pension schemes. They work very well for many - just about all my pals now retired were in one. Since they are part of your pay package, a well run one is no different from a private scheme. With the exception it may well be compulsory. Which in many ways is a good thing - as too many youngsters simply wouldn't make provision for their old age until too late. And then have to rely on the state to bail them out.

I can however see why a company boss would be against having a pension scheme - if he can get away with paying the same salary minus the pension contribution.

[alan_m]

Much like the Government Old Age Pension and much like some of the public sector pensions (maybe now of the past). I seem to remember years back that one of the rates/poll tax/community charge leaflets detailing spend indicated that the majority the tax paid for the fire brigade was to service the pension scheme rather than the day to day running costs of personnel and equipment.

[bert]

SO have I - and I concur.

[bert]

It was also to reduce the power of union leaders (aka barons) by making the unions more democratic.

[bert]

[bert]

In article [e-mail]>, "Dave Plowman (News)" [e-mail]> writes

Gordon Brown forced reduction of company pension schemes to get his grubby hands on more corporation tax.

That's largely because of the flat rate %age increases much favoured by unions.

All done by Labour.

[michael adams]

Not really, When old age pensions were first paid out the recipients hadn't previously paid any National Insurance contributions. And so the National Insurance Fund, made up of all National Insurance contributions was running a deficit right from start and only caught up later. Because unemployment benefit is also paid from the National Insurance fund its run into deficit in times of high unemployment too. At such times the deficit is simply made up out of general taxation. At other times the National Insurance fund is in surplus. Basically National Insurance is simply another form of taxation; its just put in a different column in the ledger. The only real benefit of maintaining NI payments - which aren't paid by OAP's in any case is for use as a payment record and criterion in judging peoples eligibility for a State Pension ; but other than that should the NI fund fall short there's no actual reason why future pension payments shouldn't be financed out of general taxation same as everything else. Whether that's income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, or whatever.

For exactly the same reason there's simply no possibility of the State Pension going bust just so long as there are sufficient individuals or corporations around paying tax . The fact that the general level of taxation may need to rise to what were previously unpalatable levels in the modern era is something future politicians and voters are going to have to live with. Short of a revolution of some kind.

To be honest having landed younger generations with Brexit, global warming and Covid restrictions which are of little benefit to them personally, I can't realistically see us older generations being particularly deserving of any special favours in respect of pensions when push comes to shove. .

Nor them. At least just so long as there are sufficient taxpayers around who are willing to foot that particular bill as well.

I put my money on global warming kicking in first as it happens. With the Gulf Stream going into reverse around 2024. March or April I'd say. That's the year Brexit + 4 as well, of course. When the South East of England was finally overrun by the Northern Hordes. I've recently been rewatching Mad Max 1,2, and 3 in preparation for all this, myself.

Pensions, what pensions ?

michael adams

...

[Andrew]

Apart from police who pay 11%, virtually no-one paid more than 6% and just as many paid less or even nothing (many civil service grades). The employer (or taxpayer) effectively paid the real cost, which would actuarily require 18% of gross earnings all your working life even if you retired at 60 on half pay.