ADVICE: WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCE

[sumdumbloke]

I have paid my dues over the years as well

That is an argument that we are hearing more and more and at times I wonder if it actually is totally valid.
In relation to how much people take out of the system versus how much they put in there is obviously a significant misbalance (hence our debt) ...

I, we, have taken virtually zilch out the system.

Having made sacrifices and taken care to provide for our retirement over many years I do NOT expect to get skinned by the Government reneging on their promises ... a meagre State Pension and a few logs basically.

I'm afraid that's a very common view, but just plain wrong. Miras, anyone? The asset bubble that was created in house prices in one generation? What about historically high health care investments just at the time your generation starts to need it?

The problem with debates like this is everyone personalises it when they talk about generalities, and generalises when we look at the personal.

As an exercise, work out your approximate average earnings and tax/ni paid (do it in 5 or ten year averages) and then look how much you take out in pension payments alone. If you have a final salary scheme, then I'm afraid the guilt should be many times worse, since only a tiny % were ever funded properly. Most were gigantic Ponzi schemes that are being funded by the generation that comes behind you.

[david63]

Not true
- born (NHS?)
- educated
- transport system/road network
- waste management
- street lighting
- pension
- public areas
- policing/armed forces
- etc. etc.
The question is whether or not our personal contributions will have covered the costs of this ... I would have thought that most people who have been in full time employment will have covered these costs (and more) ... but will they continue to cover them from cradle to grave?

But much of Government income is not from direct personal contributions and the point is that you cannot take it in isolation.

If you have a final salary scheme, then I'm afraid the guilt should be many times worse, since only a tiny % were ever funded properly.

That argument is only valid for public sector pensions - those of us who have private sector pensions have paid for them in conjunction with our employers.

[sumdumbloke]

If you have a final salary scheme, then I'm afraid the guilt should be many times worse, since only a tiny % were ever funded properly.

That argument is only valid for public sector pensions - those of us who have private sector pensions have paid for them in conjunction with our employers.

I'm afraid it's particularly true of private schemes. They no longer exist for private sector employees other than as a liability on their employers, which limits their ability to grow/invest. They were never funded adequately.

The current Grangemouth factory dispute in Scotland is a case in point. Unions fought for the final salary scheme to remain. To do that, the company would have to pay 65% of each employees' salary into the scheme every year for 40 years for it to be funded adequately (so pension contributions of £20,000 per year for 40 years) and that would not provide a lavish income.

I don't know if you can look back at what you/your employer paid each month, but was it anything approaching that level?

[oldbluefox]

That argument is only valid for public sector pensions - those of us who have private sector pensions have paid for them in conjunction with our employers.

I have a public sector pension for which I paid into throughout my working life. Not sure where this idea that public sector pensions are non contributory came from.

[david63]

I don't know if you can look back at what you/your employer paid each month, but was it anything approaching that level?

If a private sector pension scheme has been set up correctly then it should be self funding from the interest on the investments so it becomes irrelevant as to how much I, or anyone else, actually paid into the fund. One of the problems with this of late has been the reduction in investment income - but one thing that I do know is that my pension scheme is well covered to see me out.

[Jan Rosser]

That argument is only valid for public sector pensions - those of us who have private sector pensions have paid for them in conjunction with our employers.

I have a public sector pension for which I paid into throughout my working life. Not sure where this idea that public sector pensions are non contributory came from.

I too have a public sector pension which I paid into for the 27 years I worked and consequently was paid a proportionate pension. However my late husband was in the civil service and he paid a small percentage towards a widow's pension the rest paid by his employer. I consider myself very fortunate that I am paid half of his pension entitlement but not the reason why

[Delboy]

What about all those people who have paid in all their lives, and only enjoyed the benefits for a short period, life expectancy has only increased as of late.

For years not many people lived very long past retired age, they certain paid in more than they got out.

My comments when saying I have paid in for 58.5 years, are only in relation to the government pension scheme, not private arrangements.

All this nonsense about entitlement and greed, from who!!! If you pay into something all your working life and are promised something at the end, then surely that is what you should expect to receive, otherwise you have been conned. Nothing to do with greed.

[david63]

I don't think that anyone has said that public sector pensions are/were non contributory. The point is that the employer's part is paid out of public funds (taxation) and in many (most?) cases was not actually funded but relies on current taxation to fund the pensions. Whereas a private sector pension the contributions of both members and employer are "ring fenced" or at least have been for many years now.

[Delboy]

Manoverboard

I, we, have taken virtually zilch out the system.

Not true
- born (NHS?)
- educated
- transport system/road network
- waste management
- street lighting
- public areas
- policing/armed forces
- etc. etc.
The question is whether or not our personal contributions will have covered the costs of this ... I would have thought that most people who have been in full time employment will have covered these costs (and more) ... but will they continue to cover them from cradle to grave?

Most of what has been listed are not paid for out of personal pension contributions, that are paid for by the local council, out of the rates we pay.

[Silver_Shiney]

I don't know if you can look back at what you/your employer paid each month, but was it anything approaching that level?

If a private sector pension scheme has been set up correctly then it should be self funding from the interest on the investments so it becomes irrelevant as to how much I, or anyone else, actually paid into the fund. One of the problems with this of late has been the reduction in investment income - but one thing that I do know is that my pension scheme is well covered to see me out.

On a technical point - investments do not generate interest (unless they are held as pure cash in, say, a building society). They hopefuly grow as fund prices increase but there is the real risk that fund prices will go down and, thus, the value of the fund will decrease. Now, this is a problem for the capital already invested, but for monthly contributions it can actually be advantageous (it's called pound-cost averaging), as each payment buys more units, because they are cheaper, and you then have more units to increase in value as the fund price goes up.

The stockmarket "operates" in cycles of 5-10 years. Some funds are falling at the moment, which is a fat lot of use to investors who need to use the capital now to purchase an annuity, but for those who can wait a few years, historically the values will rise.

David, I get the impression, from what you say, that you are already drawing your "pension"? What people call "pension" is actually an annuity, which is purchased from the proceeds of your pension fund. Once purchased, its value is set and, unless it is a unit-linked annuity (a risky product to buy), the value is guaranteed for your life. Annuity providers employ teams of actuaries who study anticipated investment performance, lifestyles and mortality rates and will set the annuity rates accordingly. These rates have been falling in recent years because we're all living longer, so there is less money around to last longer.

[Ray Scully]

And I only posted a joke

Ray

[Dark Knight]

Ray
well in future don't post jokes at the expense of cash strapped pensioners, who can only afford one or two exotic holidays per year
you know how arsey they get ,when you tell em they are a load of free loading spongers, who are ruining the country by being greedy and selfish and dont give a dam about anyone else so long as they are fed ,watered and warm
now hang your head in shame..you bad man

[haveabeer]

Yes Ray stop bullying us poor pensioners

[Delboy]

As they say

"it's the way you tell em"

Let's face it, some cannot........

[Manoverboard]

I have paid my dues over the years as well

That is an argument that we are hearing more and more and at times I wonder if it actually is totally valid.
In relation to how much people take out of the system versus how much they put in there is obviously a significant misbalance (hence our debt) ...

I, we, have taken virtually zilch out the system.

Not true
- born (NHS?)
- educated
- transport system/road network
- waste management
- street lighting
- pension
- public areas
- policing/armed forces
- etc. etc.

The question is whether or not our personal contributions will have covered the costs of this ... I would have thought that most people who have been in full time employment will have covered these costs (and more) ...

Well we have certainly covered them and more ... not only by paying umpteen £££s of taxes at the higher rates but also by using Private Health Care as opposed to the NHS. Out of interest my pension is properly funded and not directly by the State.

... and your list of ' not trues ' is inaccurate because most of the services listed are funded, partially or otherwise, by the various Local Authorities via the Rates that we have also stumped up for in no small measure.

ps ... not only that but I am also thinking of issuing a warning to that troublemaker Scully for posting under ' General Chat ' rather than ' Jokes '.

pps ... Sorry Delboy I missed your posting re the Rates

[Dark Knight]

See Ray, you are causing no end of aggro
pensioners are not blood sucking leeches draining the economy and frittering away the countries wealth and it is quite wrong to portray them as tattoed, prossy users who spend all the countires money on their greedy selfish selves

Moby Give him a warning ...bloody trouble maker

[haveabeer]

DK
straight Red card I reckon

[Dark Knight]

Hab
at the very least
plus a fine and a 3 month ban...minimum

[Ray B]

Nice one Batty, you understand us pensioners really well .

Now get back to work and keep me in the lifestyle I have now got use to.

Ray

[haveabeer]

Oh that's good the Cunard brochure has just arrived I wonder when we are getting our winter fuel payment

[oldbluefox]

I don't think that anyone has said that public sector pensions are/were non contributory. The point is that the employer's part is paid out of public funds (taxation) and in many (most?) cases was not actually funded but relies on current taxation to fund the pensions. Whereas a private sector pension the contributions of both members and employer are "ring fenced" or at least have been for many years now.

David63 - "those of us who have private sector pensions have paid for them" ergo those in the public sector have not?

In the final analysis all employer contributions are paid for by the man in the street either via taxation to those in the public sector or factored into prices in the private sector. All employer contributions have to be paid for and accounted for somewhere.

[Kendhni]

All this nonsense about entitlement and greed, from who!!! If you pay into something all your working life and are promised something at the end, then surely that is what you should expect to receive, otherwise you have been conned. Nothing to do with greed.

I assume you are asking me on this one. We obviously agree on the point about promises .. however that does not stop it from being a one sided contract with an expectancy for someone else to pick up the bill ... if they refuse to do so then there is nothing anybody will be able to do about it.

We are all guilty in relation to entitlement/greed ... and over the last couple of decades that has been getting much worse ... that is one of the main reasons we have so much debt.

It is a good point to make that we have to keep the concepts of state pension and private pension apart because the criteria for both of these are very different.

[oldbluefox]

I would say the two main reasons why we have so much debt are due to a profligate government who thought they could borrow their way out of debt and a poorly regulated investment market geared towards making bankers rich irrespective of the consequences for the rest of society.

[Silver_Shiney]

I would say the two main reasons why we have so much debt are due to a profligate government who thought they could borrow their way out of debt and a poorly regulated investment market geared towards making bankers rich irrespective of the consequences for the rest of society.

... and severing the value of currency from the price of gold.

[Quizzical Bob]

I would say the two main reasons why we have so much debt are due to a profligate government who thought they could borrow their way out of debt and a poorly regulated investment market geared towards making bankers rich irrespective of the consequences for the rest of society.

... and severing the value of currency from the price of gold.

Wasn't that before the war?