Printing More Money Will Leave Pensioners Worse Off, Admits Boe

[Democorruptcy]

They are. But there are two components to their income.

Some have saved and invested in various things. For example if you spend some of your working time making a phone line. When you are retired you rent it out, and you make money because for the young person the cost of renting it is less than building a new one. You are able to derive income from that.

This sort of income is a good income, everyone benefits from the work you did, and you benefit to. This should be protected and the goal of creating similar investments which will in turn be protected by the state incentivises current workers to do the same thing.

That portion of pensioner income, which is a direct transfer of what is produced by a worker, to a pensioner, is a bit more dubious. It still has merit of course, because that worker would like some of the same if they make it to retirement. However, because it is a tax, you have to be careful not to tax too much or else it disincentivises the worker too much. It is these transfer payments I have my concerns about, not the wealth that has been stored up in assets produced by the hard work of the retired generaton.

So you want pensioners to hoard their phone lines and prevent the next generation making that same income?

Why don't they just sell their phone lines so other people can make the income and perhaps expand the number of phone lines. Then the pensioner takes the proceeds from the sale and earn interest on it. That money is loaned out to other people to create more phone lines.

Why are people going to carry on creating phone line businesses now when they see that the fruits of their labour are devalued and offer little or no return. All they have done is worked and paid taxes for years but finish up with nothing at the end except a life of poverty.

[scepticus]

These people are just so flimsy to debate with, that and jornos are increasinlgy light weight/complicit.

I'm always around, should you need a quality defence of the allegedly indefensible.

And Neil is full of crap, BTW.

[corevalue]

Huh? I thought I was calling for less wealth to be transferred away from the producers?

From what I remember of the Socialist workers party, they actually want free money from other people. I oppose that. My basic agenda is that each person should receive in income an amount closely equivalent to what they produce.

Is your agenda to take as much as possible from those who produce to give to pensioners?

BB asked you a straight question, re. the money he had SAVED for his old age, which is being eroded by the policy of QE. You deflected to the issue of state pensions.

[easy2012]

QE is simply a continuation of that policy to reduce them below zero and ensure the continuation of non production due to excessive external costs , particularly excessive opportunity costs when compared to other forms of investment

Excellent. Too many people stealing/meddling, so not worth producing..

[billybong]

So you want pensioners to hoard their phone lines and prevent the next generation making that same income?

Why don't they just sell their phone lines so other people can make the income and perhaps expand the number of phone lines. Then the pensioner takes the proceeds from the sale and earn interest on it. That money is loaned out to other people to create more phone lines.

Why are people going to carry on creating phone line businesses now when they see that the fruits of their labour are devalued and offer little or no return. All they have done is worked and paid taxes for years but finish up with nothing at the end except a life of poverty.

+1

They won't. Why save (even Sir Mervyn of Zig Zag said savers aren't good for the UK economy as it stands now - even if he's wrong [again] that's what he said), they'll go on benefits, they'll try to find work with the public sector etc - UK 2012 and it has been for quite a few years now.

Edited March 2, 2012 by billybong

[erranta]

If the policy helps reallocate a portion of national wealth from pensioners to those working, then it will be a good thing. Diverting too much resource to those who dont produce is a massive drag on the nation.

More unthoughtful crap from you!

Poor people spend every penny straight back into the economy helping it tick over and tax revenues pour in spending local to keep local people in local jobs

The rich 'invest' their excess cash thru City managers who are destroying the country and others throughout the World for short-termist, crony corporatism profit and greed

Edited March 2, 2012 by erranta

[leicestersq]

BB asked you a straight question, re. the money he had SAVED for his old age, which is being eroded by the policy of QE. You deflected to the issue of state pensions.

You fail to understand what saved money is.

If it is in a bank, then it is actually invested in an asset somewhere, a loan normally. If the value of those assets fall enough through deflation, all the savings get wiped out. QE is probably defending his saved money by keeping the financial system and the productive system working. The cost is that real interest rates go negative for savers, but it ensures assets paid for with loans remain profitable.

So you either lose money slowly thanks to qe, or lose it quickly to deflation. It is far better to make savers pay a little to allow the productive part of our economy gain.

There is no free lunch.

[Bruce Banner]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle

http://www.swp.org.uk/

[Lion]

Hardly, I worked and saved for my retirement.

I do not as yet receive a State pension, but when I do I expect it to be commensurate with what I paid into the State pension scheme.

Incidentally, I don't actually need the State pension so perhaps it should be confiscated and given to someone who paid nothing into it.

The money you paid in has long gone, your pension will fully be paid from current taxes. I plan to retire in about 30 yrs and fully expect the pension system will be far less generous then. I expect a massive reduction in income when I retire. By then all state pensions may be means tested because the government may only be able to pay a small pension to the poorest of the poor, and regardless of contributions I may therefore not get any state pension as I also save for a private pension and have a house. Tough luck - you can only get what is there.

Today's pensioners have no reason to complain:

Never ever did average pensioners have it so good as now.

Never ever was the ratio of workers to pensioners so bad as now - and it will get much worse.

History will view the last 50 years as the golden age for pensioners and this age is coming to an end as it is unsustainable due to demographic changes - less young people and more old people who also live longer. The key underlying reasons for the huge deficits in most western countries are the unaffordable pension systems. Would the states not have to prop up the pension systems, no government would have a deficit anymore.

My parents were teachers in Austria and get a state pension of 3000 Euro net per month each. Good for them, but not sustainable.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Lion

[Bruce Banner]

The money you paid in has long gone, your pension will fully be paid from current taxes.

Yes, of course, that's how governments choose to do it, which is part of the problem, but it was ever thus.

[leicestersq]

Yes, of course, that's how governments choose to do it, which is part of the problem, but it was ever thus.

BB,

not all government's do it that way. I think that Japan and Norway have funded schemes. Can anyone confirm this?

The trouble is those funded schemes are often a worse idea than paying for pensions out of directo taxation. The state then has to invest the money somewhere, and the state isnt a good guardian of other people's money or a good investor of it. Norway has lost loads I think to US investment banks getting them to buy rubbish. In Japan I think that the scheme ended up with loads of Japanese bonds, which begs the question, why bother, when they just pay out of taxation anyway?

[Bruce Banner]

BB,

not all government's do it that way. I think that Japan and Norway have funded schemes. Can anyone confirm this?

The trouble is those funded schemes are often a worse idea than paying for pensions out of directo taxation. The state then has to invest the money somewhere, and the state isnt a good guardian of other people's money or a good investor of it. Norway has lost loads I think to US investment banks getting them to buy rubbish. In Japan I think that the scheme ended up with loads of Japanese bonds, which begs the question, why bother, when they just pay out of taxation anyway?

Did I say all governments?

[leicestersq]

Did I say all governments?

that's how governments choose to do it

Well that is how I interpreted your earlier statement in bold above.

[Bruce Banner]

that's how governments choose to do it

Well that is how I interpreted your earlier statement in bold above.

Well, as usual, you were wrong.

[Democorruptcy]

[billybong]

http://www.citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/stout-qe-worse-than-drugs-its-economic-vandalism/a571388?ref=wealth-manager-latest-news-list

Aberdeen Asset Management's Bruce Stout has blasted the central banks that have used quantitative easing (QE) to shore up the financial system, dubbing QE 'worse than a drug' and 'economic vandalism' of the highest degree.

[scepticus]

The money you paid in has long gone, your pension will fully be paid from current taxes. I plan to retire in about 30 yrs and fully expect the pension system will be far less generous then. I expect a massive reduction in income when I retire. By then all state pensions may be means tested because the government may only be able to pay a small pension to the poorest of the poor, and regardless of contributions I may therefore not get any state pension as I also save for a private pension and have a house. Tough luck - you can only get what is there.

Today's pensioners have no reason to complain:

Never ever did average pensioners have it so good as now.

Never ever was the ratio of workers to pensioners so bad as now - and it will get much worse.

History will view the last 50 years as the golden age for pensioners and this age is coming to an end as it is unsustainable due to demographic changes - less young people and more old people who also live longer. The key underlying reasons for the huge deficits in most western countries are the unaffordable pension systems. Would the states not have to prop up the pension systems, no government would have a deficit anymore.

My parents were teachers in Austria and get a state pension of 3000 Euro net per month each. Good for them, but not sustainable.

Words of wisdom, heed them well.

Apart from the bit about 'last 50 years' being a golden age.

If a person retired on massive ponzi benefits in the last 10 years, even with an index linked pension, and that person expects the wealth therein to last another 20 or 30 years then that person is going to be very disappointed.

Present government 'guarantees' are not to be trusted.

[bmf]

The money you paid in has long gone, your pension will fully be paid from current taxes. I plan to retire in about 30 yrs and fully expect the pension system will be far less generous then. I expect a massive reduction in income when I retire. By then all state pensions may be means tested because the government may only be able to pay a small pension to the poorest of the poor, and regardless of contributions I may therefore not get any state pension as I also save for a private pension and have a house. Tough luck - you can only get what is there.

Today's pensioners have no reason to complain:

Never ever did average pensioners have it so good as now.

Never ever was the ratio of workers to pensioners so bad as now - and it will get much worse.

History will view the last 50 years as the golden age for pensioners and this age is coming to an end as it is unsustainable due to demographic changes - less young people and more old people who also live longer. The key underlying reasons for the huge deficits in most western countries are the unaffordable pension systems. Would the states not have to prop up the pension systems, no government would have a deficit anymore.

My parents were teachers in Austria and get a state pension of 3000 Euro net per month each. Good for them, but not sustainable.

One contract for their generation. Another for yours. But they say it will be the same.

[billybong]

History will view the last 50 years as the golden age for pensioners...

For some pensioners perhaps and in the main the public sector but there are plenty who have been cheated and robbed of pension in recent years (some might even say that some of the robbery and cheating was to help fund daft public sector pensions) so if they've had a golden age then things are going to be truly grim.

Edited March 2, 2012 by billybong

[mfp123]

its not much of an admission, given its a straight forward consequence.

['Bart']

Hardly, I worked and saved for my retirement.

We don't need your sort in the UK.

[Bloo Loo]

BB,

not all government's do it that way. I think that Japan and Norway have funded schemes. Can anyone confirm this?

The trouble is those funded schemes are often a worse idea than paying for pensions out of directo taxation. The state then has to invest the money somewhere, and the state isnt a good guardian of other people's money or a good investor of it. Norway has lost loads I think to US investment banks getting them to buy rubbish. In Japan I think that the scheme ended up with loads of Japanese bonds, which begs the question, why bother, when they just pay out of taxation anyway?

lots of UK funds are funded...its just, that, they dont have the funds when its time for the savers to collect their funds.

Many public sector funds have a set aside, an accounting trick that looks like they have cash/assets to sell, but they dont.....they just have an everincreasing pool of set aside, meanwhile, actual cash flows out to pay the current lot of committments.

It can only ever be thus when you deficit spend for 100 years.

[Bruce Banner]

We don't need your sort in the UK.

Aaarrrggghhh.... it's that picture.....

.......... .

[Traktion]

I do wonder what the affect of the current monetary policy is on output. It looks to me as if without some sort of QE we would be in a deflationary environment, and because of our laws and policies, the economy would find it difficult to go gracefully into deflation. Employment contracts and benefit contracts cannot easily be adjusted downwards.

What would happen say, if the government announced a cut in the state pension of 10% to match a fall in the price level of 10%, there would be uproar? What would the court say about it?

And in deflation, even if interest rates fall to zero, the real value of the debt accelerates upwards to a rate at which the burden becomes unsustainable. The paradox of thrift kicks in, and soon your economy collapses because no one can spend due to the uncertainty of not knowing if there is any work or money tomorrow.

Pumping in new money, whilst at the same time restraining the banks by forcing them to hold a much higher percentage of capital, seems like a good way of rebalancing the debt to money ratio in the economy.

As for returns on savings, well banks can only offer you a rate of interest that is based on what they can lend at, minus costs including bad loans. If banks cannot find safe places to lend at good rates of interest, the market isnt going to offer the saver a great rate. Mind you, getting poorer slowly by having your savings in the bank, is probably a better result than having them wiped out by a deflationary collapse.

You can form contracts which allow for deflation. You can also have mechanisms to cope with it, such as having savings put to one side.

The state has gorged itself on credit, while encouraging everyone else to do the same (via central banking and support policies). Deflation is the enemy of credit, not of free trade.

That's not to say credit has a no role - I think it does - but the amount has to be defined by a free market, not by central planners. The latter have shown they lack any sort of control and will just want people to borrow ever more until the banks run dry.

In a deflationary world, equity, rather than debt would likely become more common (how much so, the market would decide). Instead of just the debtor getting squeezed in a deflationary period, both the debtor and the creditor would have their expectations changed.

The fiat based, credit saturated, monetary system may not be able to cope with deflation, but that doesn't mean that economies can't function without a different monetary system.

Ofc, all the effort is on saving the current system, rather than realising it is riddled with fraud, is not fit for purpose and needs replacing. The market was trying to do this and would have cratered the old system in 2008. There would have been a sharp recession, but the failing system would have been discarded and new methods found to replace it.

edit: typo

Edited March 9, 2012 by Traktion