Skip to main content

Labour Government Kills off Final Salary Pensions

With the tax on pensions introduced early on by the government pension funds were struggling. There always have been tensions between final salary pension schemes and defined contribution schemes. Industry and Commerce find it difficult to cope with the uncertainty of the defined contribution schemes. When inflation was higher it was easy for them to cope as the effect of inflation whittled away the benefits (and costs) of the pension schemes.

Then Labour introduce a new levy on final salary schemes. It seems a clever wheeze at the time to underwrite some final salary schemes through other ones. The end result, however, is to put more pressure on companies to close them down.

It is a bit like Labour's tax on fuel. Inevitably this has some effect in putting up costs of fuel. Gordon Brown's removal of ACT at the time seemed to have no immediate effect. The effects was entirely down the line.

The story is in the press today that soon in the private sector the number of people with defined contribution schemes will exceed those of defined benefits.


PoliticalHack said…
Blame Labour - don't think about those greedy company bosses who used the Tory legislation to take long holidays from paying company contributions into pension funds when the market was riding high. Now the growth is that much lower, they prefer to make the employees suffer. That's the real problem behind all of this, not the ACT changes or the increased PPF levy. Note that the directors of these companies typically retain final-salary schemes for their own pay grades, showing scant regard for the future of their scheme.

And if it hadn't been for the Pensions Protection Fund, those former employees at Rover would have had nothing to show for their long service. Of course, your former friends who ran the company into the ground would still walk away with their millions, so they'd be all right.

But then, if the Liberal Democrats had been in power, Rover would have staggered on for a whole extra month before collapsing without any pensions protection for the workforce.
john said…
The point about pensions protection is that it is insured against pensions generally rather than by the government. Redundancy payments are insured by the government as is payments in lieu of notice.

The pressure on directors to handle the uncertainty of pensions comes from shareholders who are substantially pension funds.

I accept the point that directors should not escape any changes to final salary schemes. There is an argument for a conflict of interest there which arguably could have a statutory resolution.
Bob Piper said…
Politicalhack is absolutely correct about the way employers took pension holidays during the good years and now want to squeeze the employees during the bad. What John Hemming doesn't explain is that the Lib Dems want to enable these corrupt employers to be able to force their employees into their pathetic schemes even though the employees may be able to invest their own money far more wisely themselves. So you would not only lose the final salary schemes you would be 'taxed' by your employer to enable them to invest your money for you.
john said…
That is not what I understand party policy to be. My personal view is that all people should have the option of a transferrable fund.
Bob Piper said…
So, which part of the Liberal Democrat Policy Paper on dignity and security in retirement, do you not understand? That quite clearly states that the Liberal Democrats will "allow companies to make membership of their schemes a condition of employment." As I read that, that means employers would be allowed to force employees to invest their money in the company scheme. If it has got another meaning, please tell us all.
john said…
Policy Papers are ideas not necessarily policy. I have seen a number of proposals float around.

But I don't think compulsory contributions are part of the situation.

Much that people would not get employer's contributions if they don't contribute themselves.

In any event the whole thing assumes that money is the key thing rather than resources.
Bob Piper said…
Ah, I see. How foolish of me to think that the Policies contained in the Policy Papers on the Lib Dem website:
meant they were actually Lib Dem policies. instead of just a vague wish list. no wonder people get confused and think that the Lib dems are just trying to be everything to everybody.

Or could it just be that John hasn't troubled to read them?
john said…
We don't follow the "tony says" approach to policy. That means that proposed policy papers are issued which are not necessarily adopted by conference.
Bob Piper said…
So why is it being shown as a 'policy' on the Lib Dem website. Is this just an attempt to con bussiness people into thinking the Liberals would give them this power. I still suspect the real answer is John did not know about this policy. Easy to spout off rhetoric about the Government... much more tricky when you have to defend your own policies.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…