Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:07 am  

www.direct.gov.uk/workplacepensions Great. Another tax on the employer. Everyone should provide for their future of course, and I don't have a problem as such with employers providing pension advice, especially when their workforce is of the type that generally wouldn't think to do provide their own pension. What I disagree with, however, is that the employer must now contribute towards it! Again, I wouldn't mind if it was a deduction from your salary, but it's an ADDITIONAL payment that the employer has to make. Employers already pay an additional National Insurance contribution ON TOP of the employee's deduction, and now he has to do it with your pension too. I simply don't see why your employer needs to fund YOUR retirement. It's your future - YOU need to provide for it.

www.direct.gov.uk/workplacepensions Great. Another tax on the employer. Everyone should provide for their future of course, and I don't have a problem as such with employers providing pension advice, especially when their workforce is of the type that generally wouldn't think to do provide their own pension. What I disagree with, however, is that the employer must now contribute towards it! Again, I wouldn't mind if it was a deduction from your salary, but it's an ADDITIONAL payment that the employer has to make. Employers already pay an additional National Insurance contribution ON TOP of the employee's deduction, and now he has to do it with your pension too. I simply don't see why your employer needs to fund YOUR retirement. It's your future - YOU need to provide for it.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:31 am  

I don't see why I need to help fund bankers' pensions, but I have.

I don't recall your complaints about that. Or about taxpayers subsidising company profits via in-work benefits.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:37 am  

One of the few things I actually liked about living in Australia is their Super Annuation Fund system. Your employer has put a minimum of 9% of your salary into your chosen Super Annuation Fund and you can top it up as you please. Problem I've now got is I've got about £10,000 sat in a super fund in a country I don't live in that I can't get access to until I retire as I've got permanent residency. I could do with that cash at the moment

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:02 am  

Mintball wrote:

I don't see why I need to help fund bankers' pensions, but I have.

I don't recall your complaints about that. Or about taxpayers subsidising company profits via in-work benefits.

I complained a hell of a lot about the Government (Tax payer) buying the banks out, as I'm sure you do recall.

As I said, I've no issue whatsoever with the idea of providing for your future. I feel, however, that the public needs to be educated about this, and the onus should be on THEM to make adequate arrangements for their retirement.

However, as we all know, the general public can't be trusted with such matters, so once again - as with tax payments themselves - it all comes down to the employer. And I can see why - it's much easier for the government to regulate and chase an educated few than it is to chase up every Tom, Dick and Harry. It's about making it easier on themselves, and limiting their chasing to those percieved to have a few quid to give them. You can't sue someone with no money, after all.

The real problem is highlighted on the website. If someone earns £12k and they put in £40pcm, the employer has to then contribute £30pcm, which in isolation isn't a lot of money. But multiply that by the number of employees you're paying for, and it mounts up. Most businesses are not multi million pound organisations, and savings will need to be made elsewhere in order to pay for it, which will no doubt cause another stink.

Where does it all end?

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:12 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

I complained a hell of a lot about the Government (Tax payer) buying the banks out, as I'm sure you do recall...

I was thinking also about in-work benefits that end up subsidising extremely big and profitable companies that refuse to pay a living wage.

ROBINSON wrote:

... As I said, I've no issue whatsoever with the idea of providing for your future. I feel, however, that the public needs to be educated about this, and the onus should be on THEM to make adequate arrangements for their retirement...

And presumably they'll also have to be educated about how to avoid dodgy schemes and miss-selling for when they try to take responsibility?

But it's okay – regulation is bad.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:21 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

As I said, I've no issue whatsoever with the idea of providing for your future. I feel, however, that the public needs to be educated about this, and the onus should be on THEM to make adequate arrangements for their retirement

Please explain how someone on minimum wage (less than the recognised living wage), who already receives in-work benefits such as working tax credits, child tax credits and housing benefits (all taxpayer subsidies to employers), is supposed to find the money needed to fund their retirement?

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:23 am  

Mintball wrote:

I was thinking also about in-work benefits that end up subsidising extremely big and profitable companies that refuse to pay a living wage.

Hang on, I've not said ANY of that. You're referring to a very small percentage of companies here. The vast majority of British businesses are small and not overly profitable, run by people who just want to earn a living.

Mintball wrote:

And presumably they'll also have to be educated about how to avoid dodgy schemes and miss-selling for when they try to take responsibility?

Obviously. Why wouldn't they?

Mintball wrote:

But it's okay – regulation is bad.

The right regulation is wonderful and essential - the problem here, is that they're regulating the wrong people.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:48 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

The right regulation is wonderful and essential - the problem here, is that they're regulating the wrong people.

Maybe you should have a word with your beloved conservative party and ask them to start regulating the "right" people then?

They could make a start with closing loopholes that allow £bns of corporation and income taxes avoided by large corporations and wealthy individuals. Then they could turn to other large companies that can afford to pay substantial shareholder dividends, while seemingly unable to afford to pay their employees a living wage that doesn't require topping up by the taxpayer.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:09 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Maybe you should have a word with your beloved conservative party and ask them to start regulating the "right" people then?

They could make a start with closing loopholes that allow £bns of corporation and income taxes avoided by large corporations and wealthy individuals. Then they could turn to other large companies that can afford to pay substantial shareholder dividends, while seemingly unable to afford to pay their employees a living wage that doesn't require topping up by the taxpayer.

I'm not saying anything, especially the above, is perfect. But putting more and more onus on small businesses to cough up money they might not have is NOT the way forward. Especially when the businesses and individuals you describe get away with it.

I'm not getting involved in the 'living wage' debate, Cod'ead. It's been done to death. Making an employer pay another (at least) £30 a month (if the employee is on only £12k pa) is not going to do anything to raise wages, is it? In any case, if you start a pension early enough, you can get yourself a good payout on retirement having paid in a modest amount per month, though I appreciate, that doesn't help people of, say, my age and older.

Surely a better solution would be to encourage the payment higher salaries for the lowest paid workers, whilst educating and eventually compelling people to make their own pension arrangements? This will take a long time - more than the lifetime of any government, and will need to be taught in schools, but you have to start somewhere. Again, safety nets are great and - to a point - essential, but I just feel that the bigger the safety net is, the fewer people will take the responsibility of looking after themselves, knowing that if they do nothing they'll still sit pretty.

Sadly, there is no quick fix, and no 'one' solution. And you can't solely blame the Conservatives for that.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:30 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

Hang on, I've not said ANY of that...

I didn't say you had.

ROBINSON wrote:

You're referring to a very small percentage of companies here. The vast majority of British businesses are small and not overly profitable, run by people who just want to earn a living...

There are people on this forum (not me) who have stated that such companies deserve to go to the wall then, if chased out by big businesses.

ROBINSON wrote:

Obviously. Why wouldn't they?

So, who is going to pay for and organise this education; when is it going to happen etc?

And what was wrong with the olden days where people saved in institutions they could trust. These were called banks.

What we seem to be seeing more and more now, is the onus being shifted onto the individual for knowing more about a product than the person selling it to them. Because companies have become less and less trustworthy, as the profit motive has utterly replaced much in the way of a sense of service.

This isn't just me saying this: we've had a number of posters here in the last year or so who have commented that, when they started work, their company encouraged you to take pride in the service you provided. Now, it's just about making a quick buck.

So why do I, for instance, have to pay the price for this, in terms of needing to be educated (by whom and when?) so that not only will I be a pensions expert – I'll be more expert than pensions professionals, because the effers cannot be trusted?

And there, in a nutshell, you have a great deal of the problem in this country today.

ROBINSON wrote:

The right regulation is wonderful and essential - the problem here, is that they're regulating the wrong people.

The claim has been made that regulation is bad for the economy. Yet protection is clearly needed from an industry that has shown that it cannot be trusted over many things, including pensions.