Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
laurejon

Gordon Browns Legacy For The Uk

Recommended Posts

No Prime Minister is perfect, but all have some endearing features that they history can look back on as something that is both positive, and of great importance and benefit to the UK.

Thatcher certainly left behind some very good legacies, despite the bad press she has received.

Brown's legacy for me is this.

He has decimated the single most important aspect of British Life.

That is that we all get up and to to work each and every day to get by, but we all live in the belief that in the twighlight of our years we will have a pension, and a roof over our heads.

Gordon Brown a devout Socialist, Facist, Dictator with very much in common with the rising of Adolf Hitler and Stalin, has decimated the dream that we will live to old age and be happy.

Yes Brown has robbed us all of our pensions, whilst he and his comrades have been stealing from the public purse via the expenses scam.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pen...icle6445429.ece

Pension experts last week said that final-salary schemes were “finished†after three big British firms moved to reduce members’ benefits.

BP said on Tuesday that it would close its final-salary scheme for anyone joining after April 2010. A day later, Barclays said existing members would stop accruing benefits in its scheme, a move expected to hit 18,000 employees. On Friday, Morrisons, the supermarket group, said it would scrap its final-salary scheme for 4,500 existing members.

“These are just the latest major companies to throw in the towel: the writing’s been on the wall for many years,†said Ros Altmann, a pensions expert and former Treasury adviser.

Here, we look at ways in which employers could cut your final-salary benefits.

Many schemes have already closed to new members: just five years ago, about 40% of companies still offered final-salary pensions to new joiners, but today there are only four that do so — Shell, Tesco, Cadbury and Diageo.

A growing number offer existing members defined-contribution plans instead, under which individuals shoulder the risk of investment lossess and rising life expectancy. About 15% of 160 final-salary schemes are expected to close to future accrual by the end of 2010, and 40% in the next decade, a survey for Watson Wyatt, the actuary, shows.

Switch to career average scheme

Morrisons is replacing final-salary with a career-average plan. This means payouts will be based on average earnings during an employee’s time with the group, rather than their pay immediately before retirement. Those likely to have a long career at the company will be the worst affected.

Say you joined at age 25 earning £25,000 and retired at 65. Assuming your earnings grew in real terms at 1.5% a year, you would have a salary of £45,350 by 65. Based on the final-salary scheme (under which members accrued benefits at 1/60th of final salary a year), you would be entitled to a pension of £30,235 a year, said John Lawson at Standard Life.

However, with a career-average scheme, your pension would be just £23,367.

Lower the rate of benefit accrual

Marks & Spencer has said it would cap the percentage of pay rises that count towards its final-salary pension at 1%, or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. Hewitt Associates said 28% of companies were thinking about capping pensionable pay rises, and 34% were considering changing the accrual rate — switching to a scheme that gives 1/80th of final salary instead of 1/60th, for example.

Raise contribution rates

A final-salary pension adds more than 20% to payroll costs and 41% of companies are considering asking workers to pay in more, effectively reducing the value of their payouts relative to what they’ve contributed.

Raise retirement age

Shell’s scheme may be one of the few open to new members, but in January it made changes for new joiners, including increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Prime Minister is perfect, but all have some endearing features that they history can look back on as something that is both positive, and of great importance and benefit to the UK.

Thatcher certainly left behind some very good legacies, despite the bad press she has received.

Brown's legacy for me is this.

He has decimated the single most important aspect of British Life.

That is that we all get up and to to work each and every day to get by, but we all live in the belief that in the twighlight of our years we will have a pension, and a roof over our heads.

Gordon Brown a devout Socialist, Facist, Dictator with very much in common with the rising of Adolf Hitler and Stalin, has decimated the dream that we will live to old age and be happy.

Yes Brown has robbed us all of our pensions, whilst he and his comrades have been stealing from the public purse via the expenses scam.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pen...icle6445429.ece

Pension experts last week said that final-salary schemes were “finished†after three big British firms moved to reduce members’ benefits.

BP said on Tuesday that it would close its final-salary scheme for anyone joining after April 2010. A day later, Barclays said existing members would stop accruing benefits in its scheme, a move expected to hit 18,000 employees. On Friday, Morrisons, the supermarket group, said it would scrap its final-salary scheme for 4,500 existing members.

“These are just the latest major companies to throw in the towel: the writing’s been on the wall for many years,†said Ros Altmann, a pensions expert and former Treasury adviser.

Here, we look at ways in which employers could cut your final-salary benefits.

Many schemes have already closed to new members: just five years ago, about 40% of companies still offered final-salary pensions to new joiners, but today there are only four that do so — Shell, Tesco, Cadbury and Diageo.

A growing number offer existing members defined-contribution plans instead, under which individuals shoulder the risk of investment lossess and rising life expectancy. About 15% of 160 final-salary schemes are expected to close to future accrual by the end of 2010, and 40% in the next decade, a survey for Watson Wyatt, the actuary, shows.

Switch to career average scheme

Morrisons is replacing final-salary with a career-average plan. This means payouts will be based on average earnings during an employee’s time with the group, rather than their pay immediately before retirement. Those likely to have a long career at the company will be the worst affected.

Say you joined at age 25 earning £25,000 and retired at 65. Assuming your earnings grew in real terms at 1.5% a year, you would have a salary of £45,350 by 65. Based on the final-salary scheme (under which members accrued benefits at 1/60th of final salary a year), you would be entitled to a pension of £30,235 a year, said John Lawson at Standard Life.

However, with a career-average scheme, your pension would be just £23,367.

Lower the rate of benefit accrual

Marks & Spencer has said it would cap the percentage of pay rises that count towards its final-salary pension at 1%, or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. Hewitt Associates said 28% of companies were thinking about capping pensionable pay rises, and 34% were considering changing the accrual rate — switching to a scheme that gives 1/80th of final salary instead of 1/60th, for example.

Raise contribution rates

A final-salary pension adds more than 20% to payroll costs and 41% of companies are considering asking workers to pay in more, effectively reducing the value of their payouts relative to what they’ve contributed.

Raise retirement age

Shell’s scheme may be one of the few open to new members, but in January it made changes for new joiners, including increasing the retirement age from 60 to 65.

He also introduced a piece of legislation last year that amounts to clear theft yet it was barely reported. Allowing companies the possibility (which obviously most have taken up) of introducing a cap of lesser of 2.5% or CPI for yearly inflation adjustments on deferred pensions so as soon as you leave a company if you still have 20+ years to retirement you are safe in the knowledge that the nice pension you have built up to that date is clearly going to be whittled away to feck all by the time you retire. this single legislation can even effectively make final salary scheme start to look unattractive in these QE times

Im pretty sure this is also the mechanism the incoming UK government will have to use to deal with the public sector pension issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this bickering within the Labour party could be sorted out with a couple of quid. All one of

them needs to do is buy Gordon a new deck of cards. It seems every time he does a reshuffle

he pulls a joker out of the pack.

We now have a cabinet where half of them are unelected MPs that when asked a question by

the media take it as an opportunity to do a party political broadcast for the Labour party. Over

the last 24 hours I haven't seen one of Gordon's new jokers answer a question they've been

asked. They just ramble on into a party political broadcast for the Labour party. How stupid

do they think the people are? Talk about dig an even bigger hole for themselves. They've

just had the worst election results in their history and they still think they can spin their way

out of it.

Labour have finally turned the UK in to a laughing stock. What a sad day indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLTR. But you seem to be on about pensions.

Gordon has NOT robbed us of those, because the pensions as previously promised didn't exist in the first place.

  • The original old age pension was a very basic income, not a generous package. And, crucially, it only had to support a small number of over-65s for a few years.
  • The promise of more than a very basic pension, pushed in the 1980s, is a demographic impossibility when it's expected to apply to more than a small elite (Sir Fred, MPs, Footballers).
  • Pensions hitherto have been propped up by other largely-unsustainable demographics.
    • Far more women working, to keep up the proportion of people working - that only scales so long as there's a float of capable but unproductive women, which means we must be near (if not beyond) the limit.
    • House price inflation transferring wealth.
    • Tax rises.
    • Chinese goods imports pushing prices down.
    • Imported labour depressing the cost of services. Works while migrants are prepared to slum it, but fails when they get rights, even if they don't stay long enough to get old.

    [*]Generous pensions can work only where pensioner numbers are small compared to the productive economy. That implies no retirement at 60 or 65 for those in good health.

The fundamental illusion is funded pensions. If your pension is £1 million but mine is £10 million, we can both afford unlimited chinese tat, but I'm going to outbid you for what really matters and is not effectively-unlimited. Which will be things that rely on younger folks whose services we really need. FWIW, HPI was the phase where we both outbid an entire generation, and devalued their work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
No Prime Minister is perfect, but all have some endearing features that they history can look back on as something that is both positive, and of great importance and benefit to the UK.

Thatcher certainly left behind some very good legacies,...

Your entire argument is built on a false premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. FWIW, HPI was the phase where we both outbid an entire generation, and devalued their work.

That's very succinct, but i have one small, perhaps pedantic, correction to make:

The work wasn't actually devalued, it was rather that 'you' collected most of the value of their work in the price of your real estate. The value of their work to them was reduced, because somebody else was receiving the value.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was blair that set the ball rolling on most of these policies , not brown

brown did nothing to stop the progression though and his stubbornness in admitting anything was/is even wrong is mind boggling

but let us not forget about that treacherous blair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.