Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:31 am  

ROBINSON wrote:

... I'm not getting involved in the 'living wage' debate, Cod'ead. It's been done to death ...

So you're happy to ignore people who simply cannot hope to afford to contribute to a pension, then – and certainly you want to ignore them in this discussion.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:41 am  

Mintball wrote:

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

.

Well, no not really. The biggest problem is people like you who point out all the so-called problems and harp on about how it won't work, then simply end the discussion instead of offering potential solutions or contributing to a reasoned debate on the subject. It's that attitude that stands in the way of any significant progress being made.

What's wrong with the education taking place in schools, or even better, all the money the government spends on adverts saying you can claim this and claim that and claim the other, could be redistributed into a 'you can do this for yourself' type of campaign.

Again, this is only PART of what COULD be done if only people would be a bit more pro-active.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:42 am  

Mintball wrote:

So you're happy to ignore people who simply cannot hope to afford to contribute to a pension, then – and certainly you want to ignore them in this discussion.

Read the rest of my post for the answer, Mintball.

You seem to suffer from selective eyesight.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:54 am  

As I understand it, this applies to all employers.
Therefore, those who compete in foreign markets may have an issue about the extra cost negatively affecting their competitiveness abroad ... but surely those who only compete in the domestic market can't make that claim when their competitors have the same overhead?

It does come back to the issue of a living wage.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:58 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.

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?

Having been an employer in the past I do have some sympathy and it is a case of the government (any government) abdicating its responsibilty to provide health and social care for its citizens, after all without that what the hell else is a government for ?

There is no doubt that the state pension model is unsubstainable but so is the model that states that if you donate a chunk of your income to a private investor every month then when you retire you'll have zillions to fall back on - truth is you won't have anything like what you think you will and if all goes according to plan Aviva will manage to lose more money from my private pension scheme this year, so thats alright then.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:06 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

Well, no not really. The biggest problem is people like you who point out all the so-called problems and harp on about how it won't work, then simply end the discussion instead of offering potential solutions or contributing to a reasoned debate on the subject. It's that attitude that stands in the way of any significant progress being made.

What's wrong with the education taking place in schools, or even better, all the money the government spends on adverts saying you can claim this and claim that and claim the other, could be redistributed into a 'you can do this for yourself' type of campaign.

Again, this is only PART of what COULD be done if only people would be a bit more pro-active.

You can educate all you like but if employers are allowed to continue relying on taxpayer subsidies, instead of paying a living wage, then no amount of education on pensions will make up for a lack of money to be able to afford to invest in them.

And as far as offering potential solutions to the problem, your solution appears to be "don't do it in the first place"

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:08 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

Well, no not really. The biggest problem is people like you who point out all the so-called problems and harp on about how it won't work, then simply end the discussion instead of offering potential solutions or contributing to a reasoned debate on the subject. It's that attitude that stands in the way of any significant progress being made.

What's wrong with the education taking place in schools, or even better, all the money the government spends on adverts saying you can claim this and claim that and claim the other, could be redistributed into a 'you can do this for yourself' type of campaign.

Again, this is only PART of what COULD be done if only people would be a bit more pro-active.

The trouble is with your "pro-active" thinking is that it doesn't address the basic issue.
Which is that the lowest paid don't get paid enough to save for a pension.
Basically, that gives us four choices ...
1) Pay them more and let them provide their own pension.
2) Let the state provide a pension
3) Make employers contribute to their pensions
4) Let 'em starve or die of hypothermia.

What's your answer? "Pro-actively" shift some advertising budget to encourage an option which doesn't exist.

That a reasoned-enough debate for you?

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:18 pm  

In answer to Robinson's question, the government have sat on a huge issue for along time and belatedly are passing the hot potato to others. It's too little, too late. Someone has to pay - and the only people who can are the relatively wealthy, either via taxation or as employers. The minimum contributions for 'ers and 'ees will escalate quickly.

The best way to deal with the issue is to dramatically raise the reirement age. When state pension came in the average man only received it for something like 18months. We need to keep people in employment until they are c. 80 if they are fit. Better for them, better all round. So, get the older generation working in customer facing roles on shop checkouts, etc.

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:08 pm  

Dally wrote:

In answer to Robinson's question, the government have sat on a huge issue for along time and belatedly are passing the hot potato to others. It's too little, too late. Someone has to pay - and the only people who can are the relatively wealthy, either via taxation or as employers. The minimum contributions for 'ers and 'ees will escalate quickly.

The best way to deal with the issue is to dramatically raise the reirement age. When state pension came in the average man only received it for something like 18months. We need to keep people in employment until they are c. 80 if they are fit. Better for them, better all round. So, get the older generation working in customer facing roles on shop checkouts, etc.

Where do you suggest all these jobs come from?

Re: Workplace Pensions : Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:40 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Where do you suggest all these jobs come from?

Mintball economics - paying people creates "growth" 'cos they have money to spend. Idiot! Rant. Rant.