Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

New pension drive to encourage saving for retirement

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 December 2006
THE Government today gave details of a new pension drive aimed at encouraging millions of workers to save for their retirement.
The scheme will automatically enrol workers without company schemes and for the first time would force their employers to contribute. But it immediately came under fire from the Tories and superannuation experts who warned some could see the value of
their savings for retirement fall dramatically.

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton published a White Paper which he said would be "the catalyst for a new savings culture in our country". But pensions experts expressed fears that bosses would take the opportunity of the new programme which will kick in in 2012 to downgrade existing schemes to less generous provision.

From that date workers whose firms do not have occupational schemes will be enrolled in "personal accounts".

They will pay four per cent, employers three per cent and the government one per cent in tax relief.

Workers will have to positively opt out if they do not wish to join or they will be automatically enrolled into the scheme.

At the moment around seven million workers are not saving enough for their retirement or have no savings at all and Mr Hutton hopes that in total some ten million workers will benefit.

But the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) has warned that companies with more generous schemes could level down their contributions to the three per cent minimum.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 December 2006 2:26 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Pensions
 
1

Groucho,

12/12/2006 12:22:10

If people are to pay for their own old age, don't tax them on their pension funds. If you want their money today, you can't expect them to have it tomorrow.

2

Paul Voltaire,

www.paulvoltaire.spaces.live.com 12/12/2006 12:25:57

Pensions have always been poor value for money.
The ageing population wnat to spend the money when they are young enough to enjoy it.
Why wouldn't they?

3

Groucho,

12/12/2006 12:28:57

There is no pleasure in life worth giving up for an extra year in the Old Folks Home.

4

bikerider1,

12/12/2006 12:37:10

this is the government trying to cover up their 5 billion pound yearly raid on the pensions industry. now they want you to work longer and save at the same time just in case you reach retirement age.

5

FedUpTaxPayer,

Edinburgh 12/12/2006 12:37:27

It's clear that as we're typically living longer and with fewer young people to come, we'd all need to pay more. However, I'd feel a little better if
a) the government hadn't changed the tax rules on pension funds - making them significantly worse value
b) public sector workers were on a level playing field with private sector - more bottle with the unions
c) the government hadn't wasted so much money with little return - huge increases in public sector spending and seemingly no concept of value for money

6

Mr Crisps,

Haddington 12/12/2006 12:56:28

#5 - Public sector workers on a level playing field - what does this mean? You mean having their final salary schemes pulled from under their feet like has happened unfairly to thousands of private sector staff? Are you aware of the low wages paid to the bast majority of public sector staff (apart from teachers etc)? These people work for low wages, the least they should be able to look forward to is not living in poverty when they're old.
I wouldn't fall into the trap of reading newspapers and assuming every public sector worker gets £30K+ and a 'gold-plated pension' (thanks for that phrase tabloid papers).

7

Immutable Name,

of Tollcross 12/12/2006 13:51:06

The sad thing is, the low paid simply won't pay for their own pension provision. Immediate needs (or wants) come first.
So in 30 years time there will a huge number of folk with no pension provision, requiring a government bail out: a payment scheme that will be means tested without doubt, as otherwise costs would be too high.
And that means if you do save now, you'll not get that additional cover: i.e. you'll be in a position no better than those who didn't save.
Now ask yourself: why save all your working life if you'll gain no benefit over those that don't? Why not just spend the money now?

8

FedUpTaxPayer,

Edinburgh 12/12/2006 14:06:47

#6 - I mean having the retirment age increase over time to 68 - like the private sector.

You're abosultely right that the government pulled the rug under private sector staff, and I don't want that for anyone else. However moving to an affordable scheme I'd say is essential. I'd suggest that final salary schemes should not be on offer to new staff, and even moving forward those who are on them are switched to a more usual pot scheme (though their benefits to date preserved).

Many private sector workers are on low salaries - indeed the public sector averge is now apparently higher than private, so I don't feel thats a relevent comparison.

Moving to a fair, affordable scheme for ALL is essential - after all, it's people not yet born who'll be asked to pay for all our pensions. They have to be able to afford it.

9

Joey Pica,

Bonnie Lancashire 12/12/2006 14:11:18

I have a private pension which starts next year, I have a choice of;
single life, joint life, a level annuity, an increasing annuity. not guaranteed, guaranteed and lastly an investment liked annuity.
Now given the choice I would not have bothered in the first place. I am sure to chose the wrong option and I will probably drop dead before the first aniverasy of my retirement - thus making the directors richer through my ignorance.

10

Leonard,

Grays, Essex 12/12/2006 17:32:24

10.Jim Taylor.
Jim, you took the words right off of my keyboard.

11

bill, england,

12/12/2006 17:40:29

After the sabotaging of private pension schemes and picking our pockets with pension reforms, do they really think anybody will ever risk putting money aside for retirement where they can lay their thieving hands on it?

They must think we're barking mad; there again we must be if we elect confidence tricksters and criminals to run our country.

12

Andrew Allan,

12/12/2006 17:42:23

#####Echelon 10#####
In the land where the one eyed man is King, the man the King seeks, who is neither blind nor one eyed, yet still he cannot see, is the man starting out on the trail of enlightenment. For the seeker of enlightenment may not have the sight of the one eyed man, and has yet to learn, but has the vision to seek out answers.


There are Kings that seek wisdom,
And those that seek tripe,
The wise search for knowledge,
The tripe full of hype,
The King seeking wisdom,
Is the teacher of men,
The seeker of tripe,
Finds ECHELON 10.

#####Echelon 10#####

The wheel it does spin,
But the hamster looks dead,
What’s left of your brain cells,
Have practically fled,
Your infantile verse,
Is more of a purge,
The more that I read,
The vomit did surge,
You’re obviously happy,
As ignorance is bliss,
So pucker your lips,
My arse needs a kiss.

13

Mr Crisps,

Haddington 12/12/2006 22:44:06

#8 - Equalising retirement age... don't worry, it'll happen in time...

It may be a change to stop entrance to final salary schemes will come at some point, though the affordability of the current scheme should be massaged a bit by the forthcoming 'Single Status' agreement - basically everyone working in local authorities gets the shaft on terms and conditions (and in many cases pay too). Lower salaries and less generous overtime rates will mean lower employer contributions. Teachers and chief officials (top brass) will not be affected though - strong unions and seniority respectively saving the day.

Whether the 'average' (mean, median, lies and damned lies) salary is higher or lower between private and public sector is probably not hugely relevant, especially with lots of low pay jobs currently getting transferred out of public sector paybills and onto private via contracting-out of cleaning, catering and allied services across the board (where private companies fight over who can offer the worst pay to desperate economic migrants). There are still far too many underpaid public sector staff, who struggle to get by on their yearly wage which has not been boosted by a decent cost of living increase in many a year.

"Moving to a fair, affordable scheme for ALL is essential - after all, it's people not yet born who'll be asked to pay for all our pensions. They have to be able to afford it." - agreed.

14

Pete39,

Tassy 15/12/2006 09:15:42

OK Andrew Allan, McConigal lives but can you not give us a few more lines of inspiration. As far as retiring is concerned, for my generation, if you can distill your own booze, grow you own tobacco, things could be worse. You can heat your house with ethanol you know.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.