Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July

Exit poll: Who did you vote for?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 302 27.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 577 52.6%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 104 9.5%

  • Green

    Votes: 13 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 19 1.7%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 30 2.7%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 46 4.2%
  • Total voters
    1,097
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, that is a really huge part of it. All sorts of reasons - other costs being higher (housing etc) so not enough disposable income to save, general ignorance about how much saving is required to secure a reasonable retirement etc etc. There's also distrust in pensions, which is why, as someone working in the industry, I am at pains to correct inaccuracy such as some of that quoted by @stewski above which, if taken at face value, would leave a reader with the impression that 'private pensions are high risk, underperform and everyone in financial services knows it' which is quite simply garbage. Scaremongering like that puts people off saving.
 
The_Abyss said:
And this is a good thing.

You said that "private pensions are already at massive risk from abuse". Presumably you meant to say occupational defined benefit pensions, and still haven't given examples of what these risks are or shared details of the many high profile cases. I helpfully suggested BHS - were you also thinking of Tata? Perhaps BT in the future?
Click to expand...

So you agree there is a need for these sweeping regulation changes of private pension schemes such as:
New criminal offence to be considered for company directors who "deliberately or recklessly put at risk" a pension scheme's ability to meet its obligations.
Click to expand...
but don't think there is currently a massive risk of abuse?

Sure we can at least include the big/well known scandals Maxwell, BHS, Tata the bill for which is generally picked up by the tax payer and in addition to these we can consider the wider state of scandals in the sector Equitable life and Broken Government promise for those moving pensions to the private sector.

https://www.lovemoney.com/news/4133/the-five-biggest-pension-scandals

The_Abyss said:
Call them what they actually are and make the correct distinction. So you are not complaining about poorly performing private pensions, you're complaining about poorly performing investments. And, a I said before, if an investment is performing poorly then the member / trustee has the power to do something about it. The 5 year old article you quoted shows investment performance over 10 years. I'm not going to make any effort to justify the performance - it has underperformed the benchmark that the Telegraph chose to compare it to (which is actually probably not a correct benchmark, seeing as these funds do not invest solely in equities). But if you're chosen that fund and left it for 10 years then that is not a poorly performing pension - it is an ignorant or stupid person who chose to keep it. The article itself talks about fund performance, not pension performance.
Click to expand...

No it talks about average fund performance, if you have data to show that the article based on 10 years of performance data is wrong, have at it, instead of some veiled nonsense about "I think it's wrong but I wont say how".

As for the trite distinction of terminology, frankly I don't think it's even controversial to suggest private sector pensions in the UK (on average) are a joke, most people working in the private sector look at public sector pensions (which have been drastically reduced) and are envious!
 
The_Abyss said:
Yep, that is a really huge part of it. All sorts of reasons - other costs being higher (housing etc) so not enough disposable income to save, general ignorance about how much saving is required to secure a reasonable retirement etc etc. There's also distrust in pensions, which is why, as someone working in the industry, I am at pains to correct inaccuracy such as some of that quoted by @stewski above which, if taken at face value, would leave a reader with the impression that 'private pensions are high risk, underperform and everyone in financial services knows it' which is quite simply garbage. Scaremongering like that puts people off saving.
Click to expand...

Why do you think there is distrust in private pensions, is all based on garbage, can you explain why you think the data from the telegraph article is presented unfairly?
 
stewski said:
So you agree there is a need for these sweeping regulation changes of private pension schemes such as:

but don't think there is currently a massive risk of abuse?

Sure we can at least include the big/well known scandals Maxwell, BHS, Tata the bill for which is generally picked up by the tax payer and in addition to these we can consider the wider state of scandals in the sector Equitable life and Broken Government promise for those moving pensions to the private sector.

https://www.lovemoney.com/news/4133/the-five-biggest-pension-scandals
Click to expand...

You're wrong again, unfortunately. Maxwell was pre-regulation and now there is protection in place. That protection - which is NOT funded by the taxpayer but by levies on other pension schemes - protected BHS, Tata and others within the scope of its abilities. But yes, it has limits and that's why additional legislation has been proposed. Massive risk of abuse? No. They're already regulated by TPR and the PPF provides protection. More protection and regulation would be good though.

stewski said:
No it talks about average fund performance, if you have data to show that the article based on 10 years of performance data is wrong, have at it, instead of some veiled nonsense about "I think it's wrong but I wont say how".

As for the trite distinction of terminology, frankly I don't think it's even controversial to suggest private sector pensions in the UK (on average) are a joke, most people working in the private sector look at public sector pensions (which have been drastically reduced) and are envious!
Click to expand...

It isn't trite - you're incorrect, generalising at best - and spouting incorrect nonsense has contagion to lead people to think that pensions are bad and it isn't worth saving for retirement. You're at it again now, calling private pensions a joke.
 
The_Abyss said:
There is a way to share risk and return - collective defined contribution schemes. The Dutch have them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27665364 and while he was Pension Minister Steve Webb was a big fan and wanted to introduce them in the UK under the brand of 'defined ambition'. It would have been really interesting to see that introduced as part of auto-enrolment.
Click to expand...

I believe we already have/had a mechanism for state wide pension contributions.
 
The_Abyss said:
You're wrong again, unfortunately. Maxwell was pre-regulation and now there is protection in place. That protection - which is NOT funded by the taxpayer but by levies on other pension schemes - protected BHS, Tata and others within the scope of its abilities. But yes, it has limits and that's why additional legislation has been proposed. Massive risk of abuse? No. They're already regulated by TPR and the PPF provides protection. More protection and regulation would be good though.
Click to expand...

So we should ignore Maxwell and the £400Mil costs?
Ignore all the issues between Maxwell and 2005 when the PPF started: https://www.lovemoney.com/news/22/pension-scandal-worse-than-maxwell
Ignore the fact that major regulation changes are being proposed, presumably over a non issue?
Assume that PPF will fund 100% of all BHS and Tata pensions and that the cost to the tax payers (of yet more scandals in the sector) will in fact be zero this time?
Ignore the wider scandals such as equitable life and government stealth tax?

And i'll ignore (honest) financial advice from my missus, who really doesn't agree with your position, perhaps not on that one :)



The_Abyss said:
It isn't trite - you're incorrect, generalising at best - and spouting incorrect nonsense has contagion to lead people to think that pensions are bad and it isn't worth saving for retirement. You're at it again now, calling private pensions a joke.
Click to expand...

It's entirely trite, people with pensions at large institutions are receiving rubbish returns compared to tracking the stock market, in some cases you might have done better by investing in Trump!
 
how much does the tax benefits of pensions offset poor performance? (and is poor performance due to excessive risk avoidance?)
 
By the way complaining about the performance of private pensions in the UK (in the round) does not mean I am against private pensions ideologically,
obviously I am suggesting stability in old age income at the moment, may not be being served well by the simple "free market" approach Thatcher, pretty much introduced us all to.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ng-personal-pensions-turned-10-000-6-312.html

Also I am not saying, no one is capable of getting good returns through these/similar routes (I'm sure The_Abyss is horrified at poor performance because they have the background that could allow them to do much better), however the huge gap between best and worst performance is worrying. It's not alarmist to point these issues out, it's like complaining about people talking Britain/Brexit down. Stating/Pointing out obvious problems, that seriously need addressing (including public perception due to massive scandals) is not irresponsible, it's actually the right thing to do.
 
Pensions in this country are in a horrific place - my own casual investment towards a pension type fund (which I've not put much thought into at all) is massively out performing (and that is just relatively speaking as compared to days gone by its not doing well at all) what I expect to see from work pensions or likely to see from off the shelf products.
 
While the Maybot has taken a bashing in recent days Comrade Corbyn seems to be feeling rather bold after his glasto performance:

http://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-will-be-prime-minister-in-six-months-report-10927252

But he may have revealed more than he intended to in the private chat with Mr Eavis who said: "Wasn't he fantastic?"

"I said to him, 'When are you going to be prime minister?' He said, 'In six months.'"

Mr Eavis said he had asked Corbyn: "When are you going to get rid of Trident?" And added: "He said, 'As soon as I can,'"
Click to expand...
 
StriderX said:
And he's one man, it would require an act of parliament to disarm and that'd never ever pass so its utterly unimportant.
Click to expand...

That is like ignoring May's long held position on things like regulating the Internet. Its also not a position without some support within the Labour cabinet even though not universally supported within Labour and its backers.

It really should worry people that if he had his way he would have it dismantled, without due consideration, at the snap of a finger because that also applies to his approach to other things i.e. requisitioning housing in the aftermath of Grenfell.
 
If the Government wants to disarm Trident the obvious way is to underfund it, which is largely within the Governments power, just don't include sufficient provision for operation in the Budget. Would be quite a risk, would Labour MP's vote down their own Budget over Trident?
 
PlacidCasual said:
If the Government wants to disarm Trident the obvious way is to underfund it, which is largely within the Governments power, just don't include sufficient provision for operation in the Budget. Would be quite a risk, would Labour MP's vote down their own Budget over Trident?
Click to expand...



isnt trident renewal based on the suibs, theres no upgrade to the missiles.

we could continue to operate our current subs for ages just they may be vulnerable to more advanced followers.


could bury the missiles ina feild in scotland if you liked
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom