BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Will government pension plans provide a secure future?

12:19 UK time, Wednesday, 27 October 2010

All UK businesses will have to offer either a company pension scheme or enrol their staff into the new National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) under government proposals revealed today. Will this help people provide for their future?

The plans will mean that at least four million workers will be able to save in a pension scheme for the first time.

Nest is due to start in October 2012, with the largest employers joining first and the smallest joining by September 2016. To be eligible, staff will have to earn at least £7,475 a year.

Ministers say the plans will mean that "work always pays" but there are concerns that the new system could potentially lead to some people losing money.

Should workers be automatically enrolled on a pension scheme? Will the plans help to solve the pensions crisis? Are you an employer? Or are you an employee? What do you think of the plans? Do you have alternative pension plans?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    All UK businesses will have to offer either a company pension scheme or enrol their staff into the new National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) under government proposals revealed today. Will this help people provide for their future?


    Its certainly not a bad idea, my main reservation is the new employer,s obligations sound a bit similar to the ones that US employers have regarding health insurance and those are known not to work brilliantly for everyone - for a start it makes being an employer in the first place a lot more expensive.

  • Comment number 2.

    all i know if right now at 23 it will probably be 70 to retire 7 years down 47 years to go! to spend my last few years stuck in a chair watching tv and doing some gardening thats what lifes all about work till your to old to do anything!

  • Comment number 3.

    I am cautiously welcoming of the pension changes. I beleive everyone should be saving for their retirement and not rely on benefits.

    That said, I am concerned that this new reform will be run by people who see it as their right to pay themselves large salaries, bonuses, gold-plated pensions and tax-avoiding 'benefits-in-kind'. There may also be the isuue of very expensive Consultants and Lawyers if and when things go wrong.

    In short, public confidence, which has been absent for many years, needs to be instilled in this program right from the very start.

    I would also like to see the removal of the hideous Labour party's tax on our pensions which was pilfered to pay for their own welfare / benefit state ideologies which have all but bankrupt the UK.

  • Comment number 4.

    On the face of it it seems a good idea, however, we did have company pension pots before, come on you must remember they are the ones that Gordon raided!

  • Comment number 5.

    So, are those forced into joining a scheme against their will going to get a reduction in their NI payments? If not, is it not just the same as increasing NI? Another tax increase? I'm past 60, I have all my pensions in place and could be taking them now if I wanted to, why should I now be forced to increase my pension provision against my will?

  • Comment number 6.

    If past experience is anything to go by the answer has to be NO.
    Eventually the government will tax it, the providers will place exceptional charges on it and finally the bankers will loose it.

  • Comment number 7.

    Will government pension plans provide a secure future? If may do, so long as we never ever again have a Gordon Brown like Chancellor ready to raid the pots.

  • Comment number 8.

    I thought I had saved into a pension scheme with my National insurance contributions.

    Anyway, seems a good idea however its just another cost for business to bear, unless we can reduce wages to compensate ?

  • Comment number 9.

    So now we will be paying 17.5% working Tax, 11% National Insurance and 2% - 5% pension tax and then we will be paying 20 + % VAT on everything we buy. Then rent/mortgage, Council Tax, Gas, Electric, Water, TV licence, Phone Bill, Broadband and travelling costs to work etc; all this before food and clothing and, if really really lucky we may be able to buy a chocolate Bar once a week. Cameron is an evil, uncaring buffoon who will destroy this country. He is always smirking and coming out with stupid comments at PM's Question time. Mr Ed Miliband is, at least, respectfully spoken and is asking relevant questions, never answered, in a serious and respectfull manner.

  • Comment number 10.

    I would also like to add that given each and every worker who gives up large amounts of their lives, often working under stress and pressure caused by work and by Companies, that those Companies and Businesses should take a larger amount from their profits to help boost workers pension funds.

    The only way this system will not work is if there are 'dark forces' working against it rather than for it.

    Public confidence and transparency is vital for this scheme to work.

  • Comment number 11.

    "but there are concerns that the new system could potentially lead to some people losing money."

    Already it has started. Many, Many people are already loosing vast amounts of money under current schemes. Not least from the dreadful Labour Governments immediate tax on our pensions when they first came to power in 1997 - will the new Government remove this vile and blighting tax on us??

  • Comment number 12.

    We have to do something.

    The pensions problem is growing and Labour's reluctance to deal with the problem over the last decade has made things worse. They took money from private pensions (Brown's tax-credit 'grab') and carried on the obviously unsustainable final salary non-contribution (or low contribution) public schemes. There are virtually no final salary schemes in the private sector and yet 90% of public sector staff have them. If you find an employer able to afford it, the average private sector employer contributes at most 5%. It's been calculated that the average public sector pension would require an employer contribution of 27% of salary!

    And, of course, there is no pension pot, no money saved away to pay public sector pensions. They are payable 'on a promise' by future workers.

    People are living longer, in retirement for longer, the unfunded promises made by successive Governments cannot continue.

    If we are happy that we are going to be living 10 years longer than those retiring 50 years ago, we have to accept that that is twice as long spent as a pensioner.

    People have to undestand that they will need to save for their future or accept that they will be working longer. The public sector have to understand that the country cannot afford their gold-plated pensions.

    That's reality.

  • Comment number 13.

    We have this aleady, called The Second State Pension.

    And then some wit decided that we should be allowed to "contract-out" enter the final salary scheme.

    Result? Government steals from penion fund and scheme collapses.

    What makes you think that you could trust them?

    It's just an excuse to collect more taxes and use them to pay bankers bonuses.

  • Comment number 14.

    "5. At 12:41pm on 27 Oct 2010, Tio Terry wrote:
    So, are those forced into joining a scheme against their will going to get a reduction in their NI payments? If not, is it not just the same as increasing NI? Another tax increase?"

    There is a difference. NI goes off and disapears into a big pot, never to be seen again by you, wasted by brown, hopefully spend wisely by the coalition.

    These payments will be YOUR money, YOUR pension pot. If you pay more in NI, youget very little extra back for it. Pay more into your pension pot and hopefully you will see more back.

  • Comment number 15.

    this has been a long time coming,
    it is right that people should fund their own pension funds and not rely on the state ,
    at last a government with a big enough pair to tackle the unfairness that has been going on for decades
    I know the NI stamp used to go in part to the state pension but as labour have decimated this country and left a massive debt in its wake ,and used the NI to fund the unemployed and every other scrounger in this country,people need to take responsibility for their own lives and get jobs and contribute to the state and stop relying on handouts funded by others.
    you need open your eyes if you think this is wrong

  • Comment number 16.

    Yes, this is a great idea. If we had done it in 1970 we wouldn't have a pension crisis now. I would rather see all of the contributions, the company's and the workers go into a seperate fund administered totally independantly from the Government. No pensions holidays. The ability to make catch up payments, and provision for short spells of unemployment, casual workers and part time workers.
    You can rest assured it will be a half baked mess, like all of the previous reforms, but the idea is good.

  • Comment number 17.

    9. At 12:44pm on 27 Oct 2010, adelaide wrote:

    So now we will be paying 17.5% working Tax, 11% National Insurance and 2% - 5% pension tax and then we will be paying 20 + % VAT on everything we buy. Then rent/mortgage, Council Tax, Gas, Electric, Water, TV licence, Phone Bill, Broadband and travelling costs to work etc; all this before food and clothing and, if really really lucky we may be able to buy a chocolate Bar once a week. Cameron is an evil, uncaring buffoon who will destroy this country. He is always smirking and coming out with stupid comments at PM's Question time. Mr Ed Miliband is, at least, respectfully spoken and is asking relevant questions, never answered, in a serious and respectfull manner.
    ------------
    WHAT??
    ed milliband looks and acts like Wallace out of Wallace and grommet and has very little to say that's worth listening to,just the same old labour cheese.
    at least Cameron is enigmatic as a speaker and believes in his policies unlike labour that over borrow to win elections then secretly plan massive cuts once re-elected as was shown in PM question time

  • Comment number 18.

    On the whole I agree with Pensions' Minister, Steve Webb: "The National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) will be the new low-cost pension scheme that will be the vehicle for saving for millions."
    I worry about
    - businesses that are already cash-strapped;
    - about the three-month waiting period;
    - the administrative cost.
    All of these worries, or any one of them, could turn into job loss, particularly, job termination at the three-month decision point. The solution to these worries is readily available, free-flowing credit (loans) that will enable businesses to grow so that fulltime, permanent employees become more the norm.
    Unlike Dr. Adam Marshall of the BCC who is thankful for the 12-week exemption, I worry about temporary staff that go from job to job, work hard, but have no pension protection because no job lasts three months. Therefore, I think it's very important that these workers elect to sign up before the three-month period elapses; then, companies will be forced to make contributions. This must be the temporary worker's right i.e. S/he cannot be fired for asking the employer to initate action.

  • Comment number 19.

    Something HAS to be done. For too many years too many people have done little or nothing about pension provision so the "compulsory" route seems the only way to go.

    What many people fail to understand is that for each £1.00 you save, your employer will also contribute, as will the tax man. It all adds up.

    Maybe schools need to teach the benefit of long term pension planning - as it stands there are a LOT of people who are destined for a life of poverty when retired. For those in their late 40's and 50's it'll cost but for those in their 20's start early and you'll be glad when you reture.

  • Comment number 20.

    It is a big concern that this new pension plan will become yet another trough for many a snout.

    Public confidence in this scheme must be kept first and foremost.

  • Comment number 21.

    My boss recently cashed in one of his pensions. When the paperwork arrived we calculated that to get back the equivalent amount of money he had paid in, he would have to live till he was 132 years old.
    His advice.....put the money you would've put into a pension into a building society account instead.

  • Comment number 22.

    "9. At 12:44pm on 27 Oct 2010, adelaide wrote:

    So now we will be paying 17.5% working Tax, 11% National Insurance and 2% - 5% pension tax and then we will be paying 20 + % VAT on everything we buy. Then rent/mortgage, Council Tax, Gas, Electric, Water, TV licence, Phone Bill, Broadband and travelling costs to work etc; all this before food and clothing and, if really really lucky we may be able to buy a chocolate Bar once a week. Cameron is an evil, uncaring buffoon who will destroy this country. He is always smirking and coming out with stupid comments at PM's Question time. Mr Ed Miliband is, at least, respectfully spoken and is asking relevant questions, never answered, in a serious and respectfull manner.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    You obviouslty never watched PMQ's when Labour was in office then? Neither Gordon Brown or Tony Blair had a good track at answering questions either.

    Take your blinkers off.





  • Comment number 23.

    'A secure future' at todays rate an employee needs to have a 'pot' of around £300,000 at retirement even with contributions at 8% most people in normal jobs will get nowhere near that sum; a stock market crash can easliy wipe thousands from this at any time - mine has barely made money over the last 10 years.

    So, will it help - yes, forcing us to save will prevent those who refused to save getting exactly the same payout as those who did, but a 'secure future' looks very unlikely.

  • Comment number 24.

    We need to know whether this is a fraud along the lines of "national insurance": i.e. will contributions be used as current revenue, leaving future generations to actually pay the pensions of current contributors? To be credible, it should operate as a genuine pension fund, with contributors' own payments invested to fund their own retirement.

  • Comment number 25.

    We already have a state pension scheme, paid by National Insurance Contributions. Plus, the stakeholder system too? Has that been abolished?

    Is the Coalition government seeking to emulate the worst of the low grade American system while still taking high grade NI contributions?

    Yet again, the UK has the worst of the American system and none of the medium best of the European system.

    Pensions are not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. Now the Coalition will be demanding NI contributions to be 'outsourced' to incompetent investment banks who have destroyed the majority of pensioners income across the planet.

    Just stop believing latest lies on pensions via a new front 'government' brand with a new layer of unaccountable distant incompetence, courtesy of Cameron & Co.

    While all this particular sham is going on, Andrew Lansley, HEALTH SECRETARY is selling off huge areas of our NHS too. Naturally, as tax-payers, these essential and basic services we pay for are not the current feast for news wires owned by Rupert Mudoch?

  • Comment number 26.

    5. At 12:41pm on 27 Oct 2010, Tio Terry wrote:
    "So, are those forced into joining a scheme against their will going to get a reduction in their NI payments?"

    No. This not a replacement for the State Pension. Although you could see that happening.

    There aren't many people these days paying in to private pensions schemes. That's a question I ask about 20-30 times a day to people of all ages in my current job (doing for over a year). No one and I mean NO ONE in that time has said yes they were paying in to a pension scheme.

    I think this a good idea and it's about time. The problem is this bit about investment funds.

    We know how that has worked out for a lot of people in the past due to bad investments, mismanagement, and market fluctuations.

    Also the article says people can opt out if they wish.

  • Comment number 27.

    #8 wrote :

    "I thought I had saved into a pension scheme with my National insurance contributions. "

    Paying NI currently allows you to claim a state pension if you pay in for long enough. ( which may change, but that's another debate ).

    This legislation is about forcing companies and individuals to make contributions to a company pension scheme which is on top on the state pension.

    That's a good thing in my opinion for a number of reasons.

    1. If you think you can rely on the state to pay either the amount they promise or at the age they promise then you're setting yourself up for a very expensive disappointment.

    2. Having your own pension pot(s) gives you more flexibility over when you retire and how you take your money.

    3. Some people are truly naive if when it comes to pensions. Things will very definitely *not* be okay if you ignore the problem. Your inheritance will probably disappear in care fees or IHT and equity release is very poor value.

    4. Companies need legislation to make them do anything that costs money. They may squeak and bleat and threaten, but the level of contribution set by government is pretty low. And they can't expect to externalise all the costs of employment.

    5. The only people slightly inconvenienced will be the already rich. Cry me a river.

    So, bring it on.

  • Comment number 28.

    This would be all very well if employees were given greater freedom of choice as to which form their pension savings take. I suspect that insurance companies are at the back of these proposals.

    At the moment, there is no choice at all for the average employee, who is pushed via so-called contribution schemes into insurance-based arrangements. These have consistently underperformed virtually every other type of saving, and are weighted very heavily with front-loaded charges, annual management fees, and other hidden costs that are tucked away in the small print. Interpreting the structure of most pension plans requires detailed knowledge of the industry and a full understanding of confusing terms such as capital units, accumulation units, initial units etc. Choices upon retirement are restrictive and equally confusing and unfair. Those considering a personal pension plan via an insurance company should ask anyone who has retired whether they think they had a fair deal and an income level they anticipated. I can guarantee that the vast majority have been disappointed with performance and the annuity rate obtained.

    Some pension fund rules, especially those relating to annuities, are based upon legislation more than 100 years old. An urgent review of suitable investment vehicles should be undertaken, allowing employees to save in a much wider range of products, including cash, National Savings, directly into the share market or via unit/investment trusts, and into property, the commodity market etc.

  • Comment number 29.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 30.

    The secret of financial success is to spend what you have left after saving, instead of saving what is left after spending.

  • Comment number 31.

    The first and foremost, Pensions should be garaunteed - no more banks going to the Casino with our money.

  • Comment number 32.

    I keep watching PMQ's but I never see Gordon brown there ,com'on someone tell me why he is never there to represent his constituency
    is this because of the shame he feels for destroying this once great and prosperous country,,no more boom and bust huh,labour does not work......
    and we are all feeling the results of their waste and miss-management

  • Comment number 33.

    @ 9 - adelaide - who exactly do you think the hideous Labour party were going to provide for pensions? They taxed them, remember???

    Or do you just think that the money comes out of thin air?? Labour are pro-tax on everything. They beleive that if people do not want to work then they have every right to stay at home and take money from those people working very hard and under stress and are just able to pay for the roof over their heads - are you one of these people who think that is fair??

    Even under Labour, we had a society where the very wealthiest people were able to take advantage of loopholes in the over-complex tax system and ended up paying less tax than the people hired to clean their offices. Labour had 13 years to sort these out but instead they embarked on an uncontrolled spending spree, invaded 2 countries and deregulated the banks. As a result, we are a country in unprecedented debt and paying the interest on it alone is a staggering amount.

    While I agree with a limited degree of socialism, ie: those GENUINELY in need rather than the masses who are not in need, wholesale socialism as we saw under Labour is detrimental to the wellbeing and welfare of the country. Why should most people go to work to pay for others who choose not to work rather than those who simply cannot work??

    I cautiously agree and welcome this proative approach to help our pensions which is far more than has happened under 13 years of Labour who only taxed it. My concerns are that it may become another trough for many a snout and public confidence must remain paramount at all times.

  • Comment number 34.

    Nothing is for free, everything the State provides comes out of our taxation, my health care may be free at point of need but my taxes with others provide the service. Same with pensions, if I expect the state to pay me a pension then it comes out of taxes, although currently my taxes pay the pensioners of today and when I am a pensioner my pension will be paid through the taxes of those then working. If the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners decrease as it surely will in future years as we all grow older there will be less taxes to spread around more pensioners.

    I look on my own pension contributions as a "tax" but for my exclusive benefit in future years, I do not mind paying such a tax because I know that eventually all that tax will be spent on me when I need it! It is a tax that I can volunteer to pay as much or as little as I feel that I can afford. Less when bringing up family and more from say 45/50 onwards after the children have had their education, even if they have not left the nest.

    The alternative is for all tax to be increased anyway and at the same time the pension to be reduced in real terms so as to be shared by many, some worthy receipients and some not, but not just myself. I have an obligation to myself to provide for the time when I cannot work or do not want to work. Those who want to can work until they die and opt out of pension savings but they cannot look to the State to provide a retirement pension for them.

    As always there will be some, but only some, who cannot work and provide for themselves, and as part of Society at large I am happy to share the burden of caring for them, through both charitable giving and taxes.

    Contributing to a pension scheme is a no brainer when given reasoned thought.

  • Comment number 35.

    Some people make me laugh, do you really believe there will be many pensions in 60 years time!? I'm 27 and in the many years ahead there are many more disasters politically (Labour) who invented this scheme will be back to raid those pension pots. Environmentally - global climate change will cost Trillions. Even Wall Street could be under water in 60 years! Someone my age will be working til their 75-90 and i for one couldn't care less about a pension, i will not enjoy life at that point as my life has gone!

    You pay into that pension and all your doing is paying into a ponzi scheme, IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY!. Once its gone Harry who retired from the public sector is getting it! and you rely on the next generation to pay you and so on!

    You can opt out of this stupid government scheme (tax) by the way!!!!!!!

  • Comment number 36.

    Is this government going to give us a chance to decide what we want to do with what's left of our wages each month after they've upped the cost of everything else. It beggars belief that it now seems people are being told they NEED this. Why? Because it's another pot of money to use to support the benefit sponges who won't work (and don't get on my back - there are more sponges than genuine cases out there. For what it's worth, I support the idea of providing for the genuinely needy - not just those who believe they genuinely need a 52 inch TV!).

    Well. This, along with the increase in VAT, NI contributions, rail fares, food costs, and possibly student fees, has made the decision for me - I'm leaving England. Another educated, non-workshy, higher rate taxpayer gone.

    Thanks a lot Con-Dem. I'm English and I can't now afford to live in my own country.

  • Comment number 37.

    Oh look, another Company pension scheme that the Government expects Employers to pay for and manage. What about Stake Holder Pension schemes that companies were forced to offer back in 2001 ?? I had to set one of those up at great expense and how many of my employees joined ? Not one !
    Also, let's just ignore NI and also Employers NI payments that were supposed to be for Pensions and fleece hard working people for even more.

    And with a compulsory 3% increase on my salary bill (forced Employer contribution) and with 30 employees, that basically means that one of my staff is going to have to go in order for me to fund this new scheme. Would one of the government mind coming in and explaining to this member of staff that they are going to have to be sacrificed to pay for this ? No ? I thought not.

    And seeing as the last government stole (yes, STOLE) vast amounts of peoples pensions before, are there any promises not to steal this fund again in the future ? No, I didn't think so.

  • Comment number 38.

    Many IT companies are bringing thousands of employees as part of Intra company transfer through Tier2 Visa. Most of these employees are here for several years but absolutely no benefits such as pensions, over times,etc are paid. They are mainly from India and are treated very badly here when compared to UK working rules and regulations. They just get away with all these because anyone highlighting all these things will be sent back immediately. They are forced to sign for the company to receive the NI contributions when they leave the country. This is total exploitation of vulnerable migrants and the Govt should do something about this.

  • Comment number 39.

    The Clown made fiscal changes in 1997 to make private pensions totally unattractive to savers, so everyone invested in second homes which many cannot afford. We should not be forcing the public into investing their earnings into poor investments. More financial burdens on employers and employees already struggling through difficult times.

  • Comment number 40.

    This new state pension will become a benefits cap.The population is getting older and a reform in the benefit system is needed.I know many people who have no company or private pension.These people working for less than 20 thousand ,just can`t afford to set aside money for a pension.It is important that money is deducted from wages for the state pension,otherwise, many people would be lost in old age with no money.
    Adding a company pension to the state pension by being thrifty when you retire makes a big difference in old age.However,a pension cap of 140 pound with no pension credit will just continue with the poor in poverty.Why should young people and the thrifty pay taxes for those who are not savers and not thrifty and allow extra cash from the goverment be payed out.That brings to mind not the national interest but the return of the prodigal son and the socialist ideal.
    Basically,we can`t afford not to be thrifty as the state can`t and will not do every thing for you.The safety net of the state should be seen as a helping hand up and not as a hand out.

  • Comment number 41.

    This is a great idea in fairy land - however, unless things change dramatically over the next couple of years, small and medium companies will have yet another nail hammered in their coffins. It's a struggle to generate enough income to keep covering VAT, PAYE and National Insurance(employers have to pay extra on top of staff NI contributions), without the projected increases being put on them next year. Yes, we could charge our customers more to cover this new pension arrangement, but they are struggling to pay already and it will only push the cost of products up for everyone. Plus, most of our staff are already well into their fifties and I doubt they'll be too chuffed about having to find even more money to pay into pensions when they're struggling with household bills as it is. Incidentally, what exactly have Labour done with all the NI contributions we've all made over the past few years? I was under the impression that these were meant to be used for our future pension provision, not for general wastage on initiatives and schemes.

  • Comment number 42.

    Of course the government wants people to start contributing into a new pension fund. More for them to raid later. Stuff it under your mattress where you know it's safe!

  • Comment number 43.

    Anthony Crosland proposed something similar in the early '60s ,a government run fully-funded Pension Scheme for every worker, to replace the State Pay as you go Pension. The idea was as a government scheme the admin costs would be lower(no dividends or shareholders), so the benefits would be better.
    Of course if it had got off the ground, Thatcher would have privatised it in the'80s.
    If this scheme is going to be run by the financial services industry, I've got reservations straight away.

  • Comment number 44.

    29. At 1:29pm on 27 Oct 2010, martin3647 wrote:
    "9. At 12:44pm on 27 Oct 2010, adelaide wrote:
    So now we will be paying 17.5% working Tax, 11% National Insurance and 2% - 5% pension tax and then we will be paying 20 + % VAT on everything we buy. Then rent/mortgage, Council Tax, Gas, Electric, Water, TV licence, Phone Bill, Broadband and travelling costs to work etc; all this before food and clothing and, if really really lucky we may be able to buy a chocolate Bar once a week. Cameron is an evil, uncaring buffoon who will destroy this country. He is always smirking and coming out with stupid comments at PM's Question time. Mr Ed Miliband is, at least, respectfully spoken and is asking relevant questions, never answered, in a serious and respectfull manner."

    Lets not forget that Brown raped private sector pension schemes thus effectively closing final salary schemes to those in the private sector whilst increasing the pension liability in the public sector

    And lets not forget the disposal of gold reserves at rock bottom prices and Blair giving up the EU rebate

    And for those reply "its the bankers", yes they were greedy but wasn't this done under a Labour government who had the power to change the regulatory environment to stop such excesses?!! changing the regulations

    The country's in this state because of Labour, something some people seem to forget and definately something BBC reports have ignored


    @martin3647 - You also forgot the invasion of 2 countries, one illegal and under false pretences. You also forgot that the very person, ie: Tony Blair, who began the raping and destruction of the UK economy and our society is now sitting very nicely well-off from all the money he and his wife have made from the endless companies they have in a multitude of names to avoid paying tax on them. The rest of the Labour party, most of which are now very well-off are still able to run for future Labour Governments or are sitting nicely in well-paid jobs such as the EU, House of Lords etc, etc while the rest of us are forced to pay for their Governance.

    Just thought it all needs a mention.

  • Comment number 45.



    No.

    When oh when will people start seeing pension funds for what they really are - cash cows for the rich!

    I have just received my annual statement from my "Award winning" pension provider and their latest figures confirm that the annualised returns over the past 10 years are just 4%. Four percent! And that during a period of unrivalled growth from 2001-2010! And for the privelage of looking after my £10bn fund, their fund managers charge us nearly £5m a year in fees.

    To be honest, I could have done much better if I had invested the money myself.

    Which is why I am highly sceptical at the millionaires Osbourne & Cameron forcing millions of people into taking out a NEST pension. All that will happen is that the fund managers will take their cut (0.3% sounds small but if the fund is worth a modest £100bn, the fund managers will still be getting £300M in fees!) The Old Etonians will shoehorn their pals into these highly desirable jobs and sit back an rake in OUR money in bonus payments.

    Excuse me if I'm being cynical here, but the facts speak for themselves and history has shown that this is exactly what these people do.

    Politicians, being inextricably linked with big business and the "Old Boy" network will of course tell you what a great new system this is, designed for your own good, whilst they simultaneously nick your wallet from your back pocket!

    I for one am finished with pensions and fund managers and will make my own investments from now on.

  • Comment number 46.

    Will the government pension plans provide a secure future? They will for the the pensions companies that will benefit from ever greater commissions and fees. And will have even more funds to buy influence in board rooms throughout the world.

  • Comment number 47.

    No, simply put, I will not be paying 8% of money that I could be paid directly by my employer to a pension scheme.

    It does not matter whether an employer pays it, or the employee, since is is still the cost of employing a person, and is simply money an employee will not receive, so if suddenly an employer needs to pay 3% out extra for that employee, then there will be no pay raise, simple.
    Personally I would rather have the money in my bank to invest as I wish.

    It seems to me that no one in power has any common sense.
    Complain about waste, but you have 3 seperate primary taxes (income, NI & VAT) which all go to the same pot, with 3 different sets of rules, 3 different departments to manage it, and they complain about waste...
    Now another admin nightmare for small business...

  • Comment number 48.

    I fully understand the reasoning, and to an extent the basis for everyone to be on an equal footing when it comes to retirement funds, however; I have a few issues that need clarifying. Firstly, the Government have seemingly missed the point that small to medium sized organisations may not have the capital to fund pension schemes, and in most instances the employees are aware that when signing up to these companies that there will be no pension scheme available to them. That choice is with the employee.

    Also will there be an option for employees to opt out of the new scheme? In the current eceonomic climate individuals are having to use their earnings to cover living costs, with many families struggling to survive. Therefore, many people are likely to reject the option and hope for the best in the future. Adding onto that the ever increasing retirement age people, the Government are distancing themselves from younger members of the public who are more likely to reject the pension scheme.

    WE are in a economic climate where one is reacting to change opposed to protecting the future. The future for many is to far away to worry about.

  • Comment number 49.

    The simple answer would be not to give a state pension to those who have never worked or paid national insurance(except those who were incapable of working ). Now apparently those who have never paid into the scheme will get the same basic pension as those who worked and paid tax all their lives. It's way past time that the parasites who live off the workers were refused any benefit. Let them make their own arrangements, the same goes for those who don't want to join a pension scheme, make your own arrangements , but don't expect the rest of the taxpayers to bail you out when it all goes kaput.

  • Comment number 50.

    Why must businesses surrender their wealth, against their will, for the sake of their employees? Why must businesses be sacrificial animals? Why is that morally good?

    There is no earthly answer - and that is the shabby secret behind the moral code (of altruism), which you have accepted.

  • Comment number 51.

    This will mean an increase in temporary jobs, part time and contract work. Small businesses simply won't be able to cope with the administration and costs involved with recruitment while remaining competitive.


  • Comment number 52.

    It's good to see that what was a long-overdue and necessary proposal by the last Government will not be scrapped. The private pensions industry was a racket, a licence to print money for its managers, and it's excellent that there will (let's hope) be a proper alternative.

    So perhaps there's light at the end of the tunnel for our young. I'd like some details though, about what, if anything, will be put in place to protect people's NEST savings from extreme market dips, and how much residual would be payable to dependants in the event of death, etc.

    A good thing is that (we would hope) any profits would be ploughed back into the fund rather than pay bonuses to "high-fliers" in their management, one reason the performance of so many private funds is so poor. So the growth might be markedly better. If someone and their employer put in the maximum £3,600 for 40 years this might well have grown to say, £200,000 by retirement which would pay a worthwhile annuity.

    Some posters though, have pointed out quite rightly, that vigilance will be required over such a big bag of money.


  • Comment number 53.

    " 14. At 12:52pm on 27 Oct 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
    "5. At 12:41pm on 27 Oct 2010, Tio Terry wrote:
    So, are those forced into joining a scheme against their will going to get a reduction in their NI payments? If not, is it not just the same as increasing NI? Another tax increase?"

    There is a difference. NI goes off and disapears into a big pot, never to be seen again by you, wasted by brown, hopefully spend wisely by the coalition.

    These payments will be YOUR money, YOUR pension pot. If you pay more in NI, youget very little extra back for it. Pay more into your pension pot and hopefully you will see more back."

    But I've already made all the neccessary provisions. I have my pensions in place, I could retire tomorrow and be quite comfortable. I've been wise and invested well. I don't NEED any more, why should I be forced to contribute a further 8% of what I earn (self employed) for something I neither need or want?

  • Comment number 54.

    I find the idea of automatic enrolment insidious. At the age of 32 I can categorically state that this money will not be available to me by the time I retire, if ever. The whole pensions idea is one massive pyramid scheme and I will be in control of how I provide for myself. Pensions are fool's gold. You can opt out (incidentally BBC I think you should be mentioning this) but you have to do it after being enrolled and you have to pay it for at least the first month with any new employer which is outrageous.

  • Comment number 55.

    The most important thing for most employees to remember is that THEY will end up paying for this pension contribution.

    Unless trading conditions change markedly, my company will simply reduce any planned pay rises for staff by the amount of the employers contribution.

  • Comment number 56.

    Blimey! Just look at the pro-Labour people on here bleeting on about the new Government raising taxes or making us all pay into a new pension pot.

    I beleive that once the new Government have reduced the UK's debt to more manageable values, we will evenutally start to see a decrease in taxation providing we are still under a Conservative Government. Unfortunately, due to the unprecedented size of our national debt, this will take many years but it must be done. We cannot live on debt - just paying the interest alone is a huge financial burden, money of which is desperately needed in our society.

    Labour have fouled up big time. Either that, or they had a secret beleive that their socialist values held the view that the UK's wealth should be reduced to that of developing nations - do a majority of us really want that? Pay our money to help corrupt governments become more corrupt??

    It is true, I have a deep resentment for Labour.

  • Comment number 57.

    This in principle sounds like a good idea - you pay some money in over your lifetime and then you get a lovely pension enabling you to live in luxury once you retire!

    However what has happened to past pension schemes? For those who have paid over their entire lifetime only to find that their hard earned pension is either a small fraction of that which they were led to believe they would get, they now have a retirement with a financial struggle because the management of the scheme has failed to deliver on the promises.

    What of the proposed scheme? What golden guarantees and promises are available, and who would ensure that the promises materialise in 30, 40 or 50 years time?

    How would anyone be able to guarantee that the scheme delivers what it is supposed to? What exactly is it supposed to deliver. Would the benefits allow people to enjoy their retirement however long they lived? Can we even accurately forecast what financial and economic conditions will be like in 2040 or 2050?

    It is easy to see how so many people would be very skeptical - after all experience and history seems to demonstrate that the scheme managers of most pension schemes do not have the ability to make the system work far into the future, despite being the top of their professions in expertise.

    At what age would the new entrants get their pensions? How many years payments would have to be made and what exactly are the final pensions that they get going to look like? What confidence can entrants to such schemes have that goes way beyond the low levels of confidence that have been attributed to existing and past schemes?

    Wouldn't we all like to have clear and transparent answers to these questions?

  • Comment number 58.

    I run a small business and worry that this cost, on top of all the other costs and obligations of employing people, will be the last straw. Why can't a small business just pay people a fair salary and provide a safe place to work, and then get on with trying to survive in a desperately unfriendly economic and regulatory climate?? Why am I, a small business owner with a handful of employees and who is struggling for cash, to be made into some sort of surrogate nanny to run my employees' savings plans, health provision, sick pay, childcare, maternity arrangements and all... it really makes you wonder whether it's worth it at all.

  • Comment number 59.

    32. At 1:35pm on 27 Oct 2010, pete21 wrote:
    I keep watching PMQ's but I never see Gordon brown there ,com'on someone tell me why he is never there to represent his constituency
    is this because of the shame he feels for destroying this once great and prosperous country,,no more boom and bust huh,labour does not work......
    and we are all feeling the results of their waste and miss-management
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yeah right - don't you remember Gordon Clown's gaff where he told everyone that he'd saved the world from financial armageddon?

  • Comment number 60.

    All private pension schemes need to be in the control of trustees, appointed by the generality of the membership and not the employers. Employers should lose the right to borrow money from in house pension schemes, which is doing it on the cheap, and should be compelled to seek their financing on the normal markets. If they should wish to borrow from in-house pension schemes this should be strictly subject to the approval of the trustees who should be barred in law against investing more than ten per cent of their funds in the parent company. We want no more scandals such as that which hit the Daily Mirror pensioners.

    "NEST" should be operated by an independent trust and free from political interference. The trustees should be electable by the members of "NEST".

  • Comment number 61.

    Basically all people who currently work via PAYE already automatically pay National Insurance as a contribution to their state pension.

    Workers on mininum wage pay NI through PAYE for their state pension. Let's never forget that NI is deducted on ALL wages below even the new 'up-dated income tax threshold.

    So, why are the government messing with this - perhaps an opportunity to dispense with employers' NI contributions via a quiet and over complicated regulation? Naturally all National Insurance contributions will be maintained?

    Pension schemes are for 'ordinary' working people are totally untrustworthy. If your company changes ownership or conveniently goes into liquidation - you will lose your 25yrs of pension contributions under current UK law.

    The government has to change criminal pension laws as they are at the moment. Pension payments are simply still a great cash-flow, like insurance policies, for the same old casino gambling via computer programs while the investment bankers holiday on private islands.

    If you have a pension plan - remember it will die with you if you have no spouse.


  • Comment number 62.

    "36. At 1:42pm on 27 Oct 2010, Shazmond wrote:
    Is this government going to give us a chance to decide what we want to do with what's left of our wages each month after they've upped the cost of everything else. It beggars belief that it now seems people are being told they NEED this. Why? Because it's another pot of money to use to support the benefit sponges who won't work"

    It's because the Government WANT you to be able to decide what to do that they've introduced this. There are too many people doing nothing about their retirement. they are expecting YOU to pick up the benefits tab when they retire. This will force them to save some money, hopefully relieving YOU of the burden of supporting them.

    It would be better if they didn't have to force people to do this but left to ther own devices, not enough people are saving for their pension.

    It's supposed to be YOUR pot of money.

  • Comment number 63.

    #58. At 2:12pm on 27 Oct 2010, SteveNotts wrote:
    I run a small business and worry that this cost, on top of all the other costs and obligations of employing people, will be the last straw. Why can't a small business just pay people a fair salary and provide a safe place to work, and then get on with trying to survive in a desperately unfriendly economic and regulatory climate?? Why am I, a small business owner with a handful of employees and who is struggling for cash, to be made into some sort of surrogate nanny to run my employees' savings plans, health provision, sick pay, childcare, maternity arrangements and all... it really makes you wonder whether it's worth it at all.

    -----------------------------------

    I sympathise, but someone has to pay for pensions. If it's the individual then you (the employer) are going to have to increase salaries, so you'll be paying anyway. If it's the state we'll need to raise taxes -- again, you'll be paying -- or else make even more cuts. It's tough, but I see no better solution.

  • Comment number 64.

    It'll be just another hurdle for small businesses when considering taking on staff. Already an awful lot will only take on people who are prepared to be self-employed or work with rolling temporary contracts to circumvent the hideously complex employment laws, this just adds to it. With around 60% of jobs being with small businesses, finding a job will become even harder.

  • Comment number 65.

    We wouldn't have the present day problem if Thatcher hadn't screwed the old system up and Brown hadn't continued the idiocy.

  • Comment number 66.

    Iwould not trust the Goverments pension scheme do you remember some years back when the Tory govt opened up the pension business thats what it was to the insurance companys who then proceeded with promises to increase the pensions of people who were in good company schemes to transfer to them ,we were dooped it was then a change of govt who brought in a body to get compensation for people missold ,some broad criteria was set up apparently to make good the difference ,however what happened was the insurance companys stopped after compensation, paying any decent future bonuses ,Ipersonally made a great loss when i actually retired having transfered from a guaranteed retirement pension only financial salary defined benefit schemes are worth the paper they are written on ,yet these are the ones being stopped

  • Comment number 67.

    At 2:12pm on 27 Oct 2010, SteveNotts wrote:
    I run a small business and worry that this cost, on top of all the other costs and obligations of employing people, will be the last straw. Why can't a small business just pay people a fair salary and provide a safe place to work, and then get on with trying to survive in a desperately unfriendly economic and regulatory climate?? Why am I, a small business owner with a handful of employees and who is struggling for cash, to be made into some sort of surrogate nanny to run my employees' savings plans, health provision, sick pay, childcare, maternity arrangements and all... it really makes you wonder whether it's worth it at all.

    An excellent comment - this is exactly the situation we are in at the moment and it gets worse by the day. The money, time and resources for all of these things have to come from somewhere and if you have few staff and limited finances in a fragile economy, you're faced with a daily fight for survival.

  • Comment number 68.

    3. At 12:38pm on 27 Oct 2010, JPublic wrote:
    I am cautiously welcoming of the pension changes. I beleive everyone should be saving for their retirement and not rely on benefits.

    ###########################

    A state old age pension is not a benefit it is a right. OK so some do not work, but would you see them starve? I think not.

    The problem is that although we were promised a decent state pension 60 years ago, no government has even attempted to achive this as the 'tax-payer' (ie voter) will lot like it.

    A decent state pension has so many benefits:

    1 it is cheap to administer, 2% overhead costs as opposed to 10-20% for private and company pensions.

    2 Both come from the same source; the GDP of the country in the year it is paid out. State pension is taken in tax, private pension in share dividends. These dividends, demanded by the pension funds are crippiling industry.

    3 You do not have to worry about your savings going up and down with the economic climate. Or with a bunch of banking spivs running off with your money as their bonus for failure.

    4 You do not get a bunch of commission led salesmen constantly trying to sell you policies that allways promise you untold riches that never seem to materialise.

    5 Company pension schemes are nothing more than a tax-avoidence scheme. Why should the rest of us pay more tax now so that someone, (who will get hundreds of thousands in pension anyway) pay's less tax on what they earn today?

    The only people who write off the state pension are those who do not want to pay the tax they should, because they can. The people who are incensed that because of their useless accountant they payed £1 in tax ten years ago and it obviously went to some wastrel.



  • Comment number 69.

    If you want to find the real cause of black holes in private pension funds look no further than the boom years of the stock exchange in the 1980s when pension funds were in surplus and greedy employers decided unilaterally to take pensions contribution holidays, leaving the funds unable to cope when the bad years came. No wonder youngsters today are reluctant to join company schemes or even worse private schemes where commission eats away at their investment even before it begins to earn interest. Unless cast iron guarantees can be made about future pension entitlements the vast majority will be discouraged from taking part.

  • Comment number 70.

    I would rather look after my own pension (i.e. have a personal pot which benefits from tax breaks). The idea of putting my live savings in the hands of the Government fills me with dread.

  • Comment number 71.

    There should be an option whereby you put in the bare minimum into the government scheme and then organise yourself. I don't trust government schemes, as they usually go and spend your money and then you find that when it is your turn, there aren't enough taxpayers to cough up. I am not expecting a substantial pension from anyone, so would much rather just save up myself.

  • Comment number 72.

    19. At 1:08pm on 27 Oct 2010, Clive Hamilton wrote:
    ---- For too many years too many people have done little or nothing about pension provision so the "compulsory" route seems the only way to go.

    ----------

    Does it occur to people who make comments like this that many can just about survive from week to week so worrying about a pension is way down on their list. The wealthy spend their time planning or take the advice of their accountant, the poor exist from one pay day to the next. How will the increasing numbers of self employed fit into this scheme, many of these are not high earners. More people now have a number of different jobs throughout their lives, what will happen when they move to another job often with a break in employment. Is the pension secure and guarenteed safe, after all workers are saving for a long way ahead and who knows what any government in the future will decide. After all they change their minds now within a few months of election and go back on their promises. Equitable Life seemed safe to many but savers with them are still fighting.

  • Comment number 73.

    All UK businesses will have to offer either a company pension scheme or enrol their staff into the new National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) under government proposals revealed today. Will this help people provide for their future?

    Certainly something has to be done about the pensions problem, private pensions schemes at the moment seem to be more for the benifit of the pension company and consultants rather than the person seeking to invest in the long term for a good pension upon reaching retirement.
    I am now retired, but I would have been far better off paying into a building society investment account rather than a private pension - which was taken out some thirty years ago, who it seems have charged Godknows what for running this pension scheme - someone is better off for it, but it isn't me!.
    Now of course with investments so bad and the pound still stuck in the abyss, one would be better off stuffing your matress with the saved money in cash for youe pension - converting it to Euro's, Swedish Krona or Australian Dollars etc. first of course, and keeping an eye on the international money market to take advantage of changes in currancies.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    #3. At 12:38pm on 27 Oct 2010, JPublic wrote:

    I am cautiously welcoming of the pension changes. I beleive everyone should be saving for their retirement and not rely on benefits.

    That said, I am concerned that this new reform will be run by people who see it as their right to pay themselves large salaries, bonuses, gold-plated pensions and tax-avoiding 'benefits-in-kind'. There may also be the isuue of very expensive Consultants and Lawyers if and when things go wrong.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well, jpublic, I certainly agree with your comments on the likely way these pensions could end up being run - apart from the bit about benifits, we, the (former employees in my case - I'm now retired) employees have to pay National Insurance, this supposedly for the state pension and NHS treatment, though no longer for your home-help should you need one as you get older - you have to pay for this yourself now; no longer for your convalesence or retirement home, your own home will be taken away from you to pay for this, your childrens rightfull inheritance are no longer taken into account - unless of course you are extremely wealthy.
    Invalidity Pension or Disability Living Allowance, this is also going to be pruned somewhat, my late wife was on Disability Living Allowance for the last fifteen years of her life following an operation at the hands of the NHS which went wrong through post-op neglegence on the part of the hospital.
    I had to fight for her to get what she was legally entitled to, yet I saw many people who had no intention of working getting benifits virtually thrown at them, many not from these shores I might add.

    So whilst I agree some benifits must be tightened, there are clearly others that should be guarded and protected.

  • Comment number 74.

    17. At 1:06pm on 27 Oct 2010, pete21 wrote:
    ..at least Cameron is enigmatic as a speaker..

    ***********
    Enigmatic = perplexing, mysterious. Synonyms = puzzling, baffling, perplexing.

    Yep. Sums it up for me too.

  • Comment number 75.

    68. At 2:39pm on 27 Oct 2010, JohnH wrote:

    3. At 12:38pm on 27 Oct 2010, JPublic wrote:
    I am cautiously welcoming of the pension changes. I beleive everyone should be saving for their retirement and not rely on benefits.

    ###########################

    A state old age pension is not a benefit it is a right. OK so some do not work, but would you see them starve? I think not.

    The problem is that although we were promised a decent state pension 60 years ago, no government has even attempted to achive this as the 'tax-payer' (ie voter) will lot like it.

    A decent state pension has so many benefits:

    1 it is cheap to administer, 2% overhead costs as opposed to 10-20% for private and company pensions.

    2 Both come from the same source; the GDP of the country in the year it is paid out. State pension is taken in tax, private pension in share dividends. These dividends, demanded by the pension funds are crippiling industry.

    3 You do not have to worry about your savings going up and down with the economic climate. Or with a bunch of banking spivs running off with your money as their bonus for failure.

    4 You do not get a bunch of commission led salesmen constantly trying to sell you policies that allways promise you untold riches that never seem to materialise.

    5 Company pension schemes are nothing more than a tax-avoidence scheme. Why should the rest of us pay more tax now so that someone, (who will get hundreds of thousands in pension anyway) pay's less tax on what they earn today?

    The only people who write off the state pension are those who do not want to pay the tax they should, because they can. The people who are incensed that because of their useless accountant they payed £1 in tax ten years ago and it obviously went to some wastrel.
    --------------------
    yet another "the world owes me a living"
    no the world does not owe you a living,you owe it your life and freedom you have benefited from it's health care system.it's education system and by the sounds of it the benefit system,
    get to work and take responsibility for your lives
    I have my pension sorted out and I don't need the state one as I thought it prudent not to leech off my fellow man.
    in my opinion the only people that would object to providing for their own future are the snivelling selfish scroungers that socialism encourages

  • Comment number 76.

    Government pension plans to provide people with a secure future are dependent on the performance of the UK economy, its balance of payments and the confidence of the international money markets in the UK in general and the pound sterling in particular. Any more spending splurges, like the one undertaken by Brown, could place these plans in jeopardy, so we must learn to live within our means from now on and not create artificial booms on borrowed money nor sell off our gold reserves at rock bottom prices. If we do that, these Government plans might just work - to be torn into shreds by any future Labour Government of course.

  • Comment number 77.

    72. At 2:49pm on 27 Oct 2010, Lucy Clake wrote:

    19. At 1:08pm on 27 Oct 2010, Clive Hamilton wrote:
    ---- For too many years too many people have done little or nothing about pension provision so the "compulsory" route seems the only way to go.

    ----------

    Does it occur to people who make comments like this that many can just about survive from week to week so worrying about a pension is way down on their list. The wealthy spend their time planning or take the advice of their accountant, the poor exist from one pay day to the next. How will the increasing numbers of self employed fit into this scheme, many of these are not high earners. More people now have a number of different jobs throughout their lives, what will happen when they move to another job often with a break in employment. Is the pension secure and guarenteed safe, after all workers are saving for a long way ahead and who knows what any government in the future will decide. After all they change their minds now within a few months of election and go back on their promises. Equitable Life seemed safe to many but savers with them are still fighting.
    --------------------------------------------------
    balderdash I have moved around from job to job and provided for my pension,and I don't consider £15000. a year a vast amount but I continue to pay into my pension scheme,and to suggest that people should live now and scrounge later under the misconception they don't earn enough to save a couple of pounds a week for their pension is disgraceful

  • Comment number 78.

    At 2:12pm on 27 Oct 2010, SteveNotts wrote:
    Why am I, a small business owner with a handful of employees and who is struggling for cash, to be made into some sort of surrogate nanny to run my employees' savings plans, health provision, sick pay, childcare, maternity arrangements and all...

    *****
    Next thing you know, those lazy employees will be expecting minimum wage. Then you've got the crazy human rights nonesense which means you can't put children up chimneys anymore. Whats the world coming to !!!!



  • Comment number 79.

    I'm 20 years old and have only recently taken an interest into politics within this country. I am shocked to find out that Gordon Brown could actually touch private pensions in any way shape or form. I have been paying into a private pension for the last 2 years and my understanding was every penny I pay is matched by my employer. This is then saved somewhere where nobody can hurt it and then paid back to me upon retirement. I'm now getting the feeling the £80/month I'm paying isn't actually turning into £160/month and into a secure account.

    From the posters on HYS if these comments are true, I could spend the next 40 years of my life earning and paying a couple hundred thousend pounts into a pension scheme to find the government ("raids the pension pot") and get paid half of what I saved.

    Can somebody correct me here, surely this isn't the case and its completely illegal in every way possible. And the HYS forum is full of people talking complete nonsense about Brown stealing the private pension money?

  • Comment number 80.

    What guarantee is there that people paying into either company or government pension schemes will not be defrauded out of what they have paid for in the same way that today's older employees are being told that they will not be able to retire when they planned to or receive what they expected to despite having paid their NI & taxes throughout their working lives?

  • Comment number 81.

    Should workers be automatically enrolled on a pension scheme?

    Yes! I have been thinking this for as long as I have had any grasp of what a pension does! People bleat on about NI being a sort of compulsory pension, but it really isn't. You pay NI and it disappears, with a promise of a state pension later.

    Will the plans help to solve the pensions crisis?

    Who knows, but something has to be done, and I think this is a step in the right direction.

    What do you think of the plans?

    A great idea in principle, but the details need to be carefully worked out.

    Do you have alternative pension plans?

    I have just become a permanent employee in my current job, and will be joining the company pension scheme after Christmas - regardless of what else happens in the meantime (being 22 currently, I am fully anticipating having to work until I am at least 70) I want to make sure I get into the habit of saving for my retirement years from the start - that way I won't have a big panic when I reach 50 and realise I have nothing (much like my parents have).

  • Comment number 82.

    75. At 2:53pm on 27 Oct 2010, pete21 wrote:

    68. At 2:39pm on 27 Oct 2010, JohnH wrote:

    3. At 12:38pm on 27 Oct 2010, JPublic wrote:
    I am cautiously welcoming of the pension changes. I beleive everyone should be saving for their retirement and not rely on benefits.

    ###########################

    A state old age pension is not a benefit it is a right. OK so some do not work, but would you see them starve? I think not.

    The problem is that although we were promised a decent state pension 60 years ago, no government has even attempted to achive this as the 'tax-payer' (ie voter) will lot like it.

    A decent state pension has so many benefits:

    1 it is cheap to administer, 2% overhead costs as opposed to 10-20% for private and company pensions.

    2 Both come from the same source; the GDP of the country in the year it is paid out. State pension is taken in tax, private pension in share dividends. These dividends, demanded by the pension funds are crippiling industry.

    3 You do not have to worry about your savings going up and down with the economic climate. Or with a bunch of banking spivs running off with your money as their bonus for failure.

    4 You do not get a bunch of commission led salesmen constantly trying to sell you policies that allways promise you untold riches that never seem to materialise.

    5 Company pension schemes are nothing more than a tax-avoidence scheme. Why should the rest of us pay more tax now so that someone, (who will get hundreds of thousands in pension anyway) pay's less tax on what they earn today?

    The only people who write off the state pension are those who do not want to pay the tax they should, because they can. The people who are incensed that because of their useless accountant they payed £1 in tax ten years ago and it obviously went to some wastrel.
    --------------------
    yet another "the world owes me a living"
    no the world does not owe you a living,you owe it your life and freedom you have benefited from it's health care system.it's education system and by the sounds of it the benefit system,
    get to work and take responsibility for your lives
    I have my pension sorted out and I don't need the state one as I thought it prudent not to leech off my fellow man.
    in my opinion the only people that would object to providing for their own future are the snivelling selfish scroungers that socialism encourages


    more fool you for paying NI and not using your state pension arent you clever!

    State pension is a right you paid for it your whole life through NI to not take it would be stupid simply because its your money back your not scrounging off anybody whatever floats your boat more for me and every1 else who isnt a snob

  • Comment number 83.

    A point on the ending of Final Salary Schemes in the private sector.The employees Final Salary Pension Schemes have been ended, the Senior Management's Final Salary Schemes are still in place.

  • Comment number 84.

    Not a bad idea but I would like to see ALL of the money invested in government gilts/bonds on fixed rates over and above the variable and rather risky rates being offered elsewhere.Most pensions seem a very risky investment especially where compa\nies suddenly go to the wall havingalready raided the pension scheme.
    Its a win win situation for government and employee/employer where the growth will be modest but steady.The government can then ensure that everyone gets a suitable pension when they require which wont need topping up from the public purse.

  • Comment number 85.

    This will turn into a nightmare for some people as not all companies will run their pension schemes properly, remember the case of Robert Maxwell from some years ago??

  • Comment number 86.

    # 82. At 3:13pm on 27 Oct 2010, scotty1694 wrote:

    75. At 2:53pm on 27 Oct 2010, pete21 wrote:

    68. At 2:39pm on 27 Oct 2010, JohnH wrote:

    3. At 12:38pm on 27 Oct 2010, JPublic wrote:
    I am cautiously welcoming of the pension changes. I beleive everyone should be saving for their retirement and not rely on benefits.

    ###########################

    A state old age pension is not a benefit it is a right. OK so some do not work, but would you see them starve? I think not.

    The problem is that although we were promised a decent state pension 60 years ago, no government has even attempted to achive this as the 'tax-payer' (ie voter) will lot like it.

    A decent state pension has so many benefits:

    1 it is cheap to administer, 2% overhead costs as opposed to 10-20% for private and company pensions.

    2 Both come from the same source; the GDP of the country in the year it is paid out. State pension is taken in tax, private pension in share dividends. These dividends, demanded by the pension funds are crippiling industry.

    3 You do not have to worry about your savings going up and down with the economic climate. Or with a bunch of banking spivs running off with your money as their bonus for failure.

    4 You do not get a bunch of commission led salesmen constantly trying to sell you policies that allways promise you untold riches that never seem to materialise.

    5 Company pension schemes are nothing more than a tax-avoidence scheme. Why should the rest of us pay more tax now so that someone, (who will get hundreds of thousands in pension anyway) pay's less tax on what they earn today?

    The only people who write off the state pension are those who do not want to pay the tax they should, because they can. The people who are incensed that because of their useless accountant they payed £1 in tax ten years ago and it obviously went to some wastrel.
    --------------------
    yet another "the world owes me a living"
    no the world does not owe you a living,you owe it your life and freedom you have benefited from it's health care system.it's education system and by the sounds of it the benefit system,
    get to work and take responsibility for your lives
    I have my pension sorted out and I don't need the state one as I thought it prudent not to leech off my fellow man.
    in my opinion the only people that would object to providing for their own future are the snivelling selfish scroungers that socialism encourages


    more fool you for paying NI and not using your state pension arent you clever!

    State pension is a right you paid for it your whole life through NI to not take it would be stupid simply because its your money back your not scrounging off anybody whatever floats your boat more for me and every1 else who isnt a snob

    Complain about this comment
    ==================================
    I'm not the fool who will not have a pension.it is you my friend ,benefits for all are becoming a thing of the past and the way things are going you may get some food stamps and a small council flat but that's it unless you start to save for your retirement.
    oh no you may have to work till you drop for not providing for your future,
    and that's how it should be,

  • Comment number 87.

    We already have the equivalent of this NEST; it is called the state pension.

    The only problem is that successive governments had failed to provide the required funding.

    A complete system is in place; all these boneheads in government have to do is use it.

    It is just one more example of our government negating their responsibility towards us and giving the financial services sector one more chance to take our money and run

  • Comment number 88.

    1. Five year ago every company was forced under threat of
    law and dire penalties to put in place "Stakeholder Pension
    Schemes". Whatever happened to them? Can someone
    in government inform us. Are they now dead and replaced by "NESTS"
    (National Employment Savings Trusts)

    2. Companies already pay Employer National Insurance contributions of
    12.8%, soon to rise to 13.8%. Is NESTS just another stealth tax to
    increase by at least a further 3% this punishment of those
    employers which have the temerity to recruit new employees and
    maintain existing staff levels.

    The NESTs proposal is the surest way to force employers to halt
    recruitment and to shed staff. It will lead to job cut backs. It is
    a kick in the teeth to small companies doing their best to survive.
    It is far worse than any penalties imposed on SMEs by Blair or Brown.

  • Comment number 89.

    Post #77 etc.,on 27 Oct - 'pete21'.

    Are you a private/personal pension/insurance provider/sales executive living off the income stream commission from policies you may have have sold that may not deliver?

    By any sales personnel margins - personal/private pensions and insurance policies sold must be more lucrative than new windows - or are they?

    Sales personnel are heavily trained with £millions behind it; employed in every area of our lives. Celebrities and celeb voices sell pensions, investments, savings accounts, insurance etc. This advertising cost more £millions too. If your bank, pension company, mortgage company or your savings provider can spend soooo much of your money on advertising - you may want to consider why your money is returning so little?

  • Comment number 90.

    Isn't this what compulsory national insurance is supposed to be for? Enforcing people to save for old age has merits in principle, ie reducing the burden on the workers of the day when they reach their dotage, but as usual with government thinking it is over-simplified, ill-thought-through and one size never fits all. For example many younger people, in the absence of council housing, would do much better first clearing their motgage before paying into a pension scheme, thus providing them with a significant asset from which cash could be released if needed. The other point is who gets to invest the money, I for one wouldn't want my hard earned pennies being entrusted to some dubious banker lining his pockets with commission while making mediocre or worse investments on my behalf.

  • Comment number 91.

    We can only hope this doesn't turn into a similar scam to Brown's "stakeholder" pensions - encourage the lowest paid to save for a pension, then when they retire they have got just enough to disqualify them from any means tested benefits, thus being worse off than they would have been if they hadn't saved. If combined with the removal of all the sound bite driven extras and benefits designed to reward Labour's clients so small savings don't result in disproportionate loss of other benefits it would be good, but we can't assume there won't be another Labour government elected with the purpose of making us all supplicants for state largess.

  • Comment number 92.

    89. At 3:35pm on 27 Oct 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:

    Post #77 etc.,on 27 Oct - 'pete21'.

    Are you a private/personal pension/insurance provider/sales executive living off the income stream commission from policies you may have have sold that may not deliver?

    By any sales personnel margins - personal/private pensions and insurance policies sold must be more lucrative than new windows - or are they?

    Sales personnel are heavily trained with £millions behind it; employed in every area of our lives. Celebrities and celeb voices sell pensions, investments, savings accounts, insurance etc. This advertising cost more £millions too. If your bank, pension company, mortgage company or your savings provider can spend soooo much of your money on advertising - you may want to consider why your money is returning so little?
    -----------------------------
    no my friend I do not sell insurance or pensions,
    I just invested wisely and I have a public sector pension I have paid into which has nothing to do with the state one plus a few frozen ones from various company pensions I paid into,and I own my own home so here is another nest egg I can use should the need arise.
    long ago I saw what the labour governments have done to the public funds and decided that I would be better looking after my own future,
    and no I am not wealthy, as I said before £15000, a year is not a lot of money to live on but I do and quite well

  • Comment number 93.

    So those of us who have opted out of our company pensions will be forced back in? That doesn't seem right. Lots of recently-established company contributions-based pensions aren't worth what the employee paid in, let alone the total paid in by the employee and the employer.

    It will be a good idea if and only if it is still at the employee's discretion whether or not to join.

  • Comment number 94.

    Its a condem contrick. This shower wouldn't do anything for us. This is just another load of hot air by the shysters running the country.
    It will cost us money - lots of it - in the short term, and worse poverty when we retire. They've designed it like that.
    Never lose sight of the fact that this bunch will only help themselves, not us.
    We've had a condem coalition here in Warrington for years. I know what I'm talking about.

  • Comment number 95.



    I am amazed at the amount of people on here that actually think that they have a pension waiting for them when they retire. Just because you pay money into some fund somewhere, managed by? you think you are sorted.

    Think again my friend, your pension is being gambled on a daily basis, all it will take is the next crash to be at the wrong time for you and you will be filling in the forms for you means tested benefit.

    The only people that come out on top are the spivs that get rich from you savings.

    If the government want a pension for everyone its already there all they have to do is fund it


  • Comment number 96.

    "87. At 3:26pm on 27 Oct 2010, Helen of Tadcaster wrote:
    We already have the equivalent of this NEST; it is called the state pension.

    A complete system is in place; all these boneheads in government have to do is use it.

    It is just one more example of our government negating their responsibility towards us and giving the financial services sector one more chance to take our money and run"

    ----------------------
    The 'responsibility' of the government to pay a pension is only because that is the system we have got used to. There is no sort of human right which entitles people to get one.

    The fact that NEST is a fully funded system is actually vastly more responsible than the current unfunded state pension, which pushes the costs down to each successive generation. I would say that the boneheads in government are making inroads into a much more sound system of financing pensions. It will make a lot of sense to gradually reduce NI and increase NEST contributions over the next 40 years, so that the whole system becomes fully funded.

  • Comment number 97.

    Onefumingcp wrote
    "........ do you really believe there will be many pensions in 60 years time!? I'm 27 ...............! Someone my age will be working til their 75-90 and i for one couldn't care less about a pension...!
    You can opt out of this stupid government scheme (tax) by the way!!!!!!!"

    He/she is 27, when I was 27 I could have taken the same attitude, however I do want to retire and I have saved - in several schemes, I will only get about 30% of my current salary, but its better than a kick in the teeth and I will take the State pension too because I have paid my taxes during a working life of 50 years. I will work part time to make up a living income. This correspondant can opt out if he/she wants, and work til he/she dies if that is his/her choice, as long as when he/she gets to 50/60 he/she does not then start wingeing about having to work until he/she is 90. But then he/she may have succumbed to a watery end due to global warming before then, but then I will not be here to see it.

  • Comment number 98.

    " Yeah right - don't you remember Gordon Clown's gaff where he told everyone that he'd saved the world from financial armageddon?"
    Strange how all the G20 Finance Minister's agreed that the measures suggested by G.Brown(and implemented by the G20 countries)prevented the world sinking into the 30's style depression, which would have been the outcome of the 'let the market sort itself out' solution proposed by Osborne.

  • Comment number 99.

    Interesting that the employee contribution levels start at 2% until 2017 when it rises to 8%, this latter figure is comparable to the amount that most public sector have to contibute in their schemes which are supposedly unaffordable. True this isn't a final salary scheme but according to actuaries Hymans Robertson "Based on UK average earnings of £25,000 a year and the 8% contribution rate we estimate employees could accrue a pension of £7,000 based on 30 years of contributions." which is pretty much what a typical public sector pension pays out for the same time/salary figures. Aon Hewitt came up with much lower figures for the new scheme, if they're correct then this scheme will be totally useless because the pension will be too small.
    So is this scheme going to pay out enough to be of any use and if it does how come it's affordable and very similar public sector pensions are not. For proper pension planning one does need some idea of what the payout will be.

    I actually wanted to see a scheme of this type which would replace the current public sector schemes and be open to the private sector where no corporate scheme was available with a cap so no one ends up with a ridiculously high pension, (payouts limited to national average salary perhaps).

  • Comment number 100.

    I admit to not having read all of the article.

    If the pension schemes are protected, then yes, it is a good idea. Too many people have paid for years into schemes which may be worthwhless when they are to be drawn, and some have no money at all.

    Those on the lowest salary won't get this new pension though - do I read that correctly? Surely they need it most?

 

Page 1 of 4

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.