Member Info for 67Sam

MV
"you would be more at home in a totalitarian country"
No. I am not keen on subservience to government. It is not because faith and belief are protected characteristics in law in this country that I respect them. It's because I understand that faith and belief underpin all cultural values. And if you truly wish to relate to people who are different to yourself, this is a requirement. If you don't understand that this is required then you are part of the reason such a thing is required by statute. If you don't like it thats fine, but the law says you have to respect it.

MV
"I always mean what I say"
" lets's bring in religious awareness"
Amazing, I absolutely agree with you. Part of understanding another peoples culture is an awareness of their common faith and belief systems. Any race awareness or general equalities course would include this. An ignorance of religions almost guarantees a failure to be able to respect customs and days of significance to any particular faith calendar.
Glad we're on the same page.
Oh. You did mean what you said, didn't you?

MV
"Racial Awareness is not a benign theory, it is aimed at one race only".
If you mean its only aimed at white people, I disagree, good race awareness training will acknowledge the racism that occurs between ethnic minorities as well as towards all of them from the predominant group. In the UK that predominant group is white people and I think there is a level of unconscious collective bias from us all. That doesn't mean we are all bad, we are just struggling to rebalance attitudes and opportunities to be more inclusive.
But you may not have meant that. I am not sure.

snige
i take the point but
"it’s tricky to estimate what people own, especially the very rich, the claim that 1% of the UK population own 50% of its wealth isn’t supported by the estimates we’ve seen. Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report estimates that the top 1% of the UK owned about 24% of the UK’s wealth in 2016. In the past, Credit Suisse’s estimates for the UK have been higher than others. In 2011, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated that the top 1% owned about 13% of the UK’s wealth. Mr Banks may be referring to Credit Suisse’s estimate for the world as a whole. It estimates that 1% of the world’s population own over half the world’s wealth. We’ve looked into this before, and found that a surprising number of households in the UK would fall into the top 1% globally." “Wealth” in these estimates isn’t just money in the bank. It also includes the value of property, physical possessions, and private pensions" https://fullfact.org/bbcqt/2017/Jan/12

gate
"a pretty viscous campaign"
Either you mean deliberately cruel, or having a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid?
Looking at who's in the running, I think it's quite possible that it will turn out to be both.

gazzle
"I didn't want to claim child benefit but my better half won that battle."
Mach
"Even if I disagree with a fair few"

Im not trying to shame anyone who accepts a Universal benefit - mine is a 25% reduction in Council tax for living alone. I did say "arguably" as the opposing view would rightly argue that benefit aimed at all children provides a return on investment for the rest of their lives.
The problem with means testing is that it makes the cost of administration so high and therefore wastes resources. I am not pretending that it is easy to provide targeted help. State welfare benefits were introduced to avoid destitution and promote greater equality. It doesn't quite tie up with providing benefits for high income households, in my thinking anyway.

Gazzle
"Not really sarcasm."
Thanks for clarifying. I guess you are 15 years or so older than I am. Sounds like you have an interesting perspective and had a very profitable career.
I don't generally bash pensioners getting universal benefits. Arguably, universal child benefit and winter fuel payments for all pensioners are daft policies that result in insufficient being paid to those that need it the most.
I suppose there has to be something given to everyone to allow any redistributive policy at all. I just don't feel it's targeted that well.

"most of that 'contracted-out' will be given away"
An excellent example to set for others. I agree many don't need it.
But millions do. Any introduction of means testing would be against a much lower threshold, as it is with other benefits.

"Under the current system"
There have been many, many changes to the state pension systems during my career.
I am hoping the next one ISNT going to be making it means tested.

"went up last time by the inflation rate (3.1%)"
Yes I was wrong on that thanks for pointing it out.
I do not begrudge the state pension being linked to CPI even if it means an additional 10% burden. It is an achievement for a nation to provide a basic income in later years. It hasn't been achieved in many other countries. It was shockingly low in the 1980s in England I would not wish to see progress since then be lost.

gazzle
Im not sure if thats sarcasm? I was told Id retire at 65 but now I am told something different. The UK state pension has improved dramatically over the last twenty years but I wouldn't want to try and live on just that. "Poor investing pensioners" who receive 10% this year will still be behind as it wasn't an inflation linked rise last year.
"What a mess"
It is what it is. I was making a point that high inflation poses risks to funded pension schemes. Although state pension is "unfunded", the risk of un-sustainability is still there. The numbers of people over 65 are now bigger than those under 16. So our future commitment increases while the contributions reduce.
My fear is they will switch it to a means tested benefit in the not too distant future. The forecasts of state pension that we get while we are still working are not a guarantee of what we will receive, unlike db schemes.

lti
"I assume you have been there a long time"
I left twenty years ago. It is still a fair slice of what I am anticipating as a pension because of all the years of compounding.

"State pensions - also unfunded"
"The UK State Pension is unfunded, which means that its obligations are not underpinned by an actual fund or funds. Such schemes are often referred to as “Pay As You Go” (PAYG). The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation.", (ONS).
Being able to raise revenue through taxation for a state pension means is less risk. There will always be people to tax. By contrast this is a vol sector organisation facing years of contributions (ie. additional costs) to make up the current deficit for a funded scheme that closed to new entrants in 2001 and to new accruals in 2010.
In my view that fund is far more at risk. This risk will increase in the near future as it will struggle to make a return on its investments that keeps pace with very high inflation.

my vol sector pension - funded
"The annually calculated notional surplus or deficit on the funding of the scheme is shown in the Financial Statements as the ‘pension reserve’ and is deducted from unrestricted funds in the Balance Sheet."
page 45, first paragraph
https://rnid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SignedAccounts2020.pdf

https://www.lgpsmember.org/about-the-lgps/how-the-lgps-is-run/

lti
"I think local government my be funded"
correct.

Too tired now. My general point is public sector schemes db schemes can go bust just like vol sector and private ones. They are weakened by people who their transfer their contributions out because they benefit individually. We have had the highest transfer rates payable ever in recent years because of the risks facing funds that still make continuing CPI guarantees And during times of high inflation these funds will easily fall into deficit. For schemes that are closed to new contributions, as one of mine is, that spells trouble ahead.

Lti
Agreed, no public sector pension will increase at less than CPI. But that is still a reduction most were forced to adopt, having previously paid RPI year on year. So it is a contraction of benefit further eroded by a 5% cap on CPI in some cases.
As acknowledged I feel fortunate to have this and I am keen that it also continues as an opportunity for others. Unlike Gate, who thinks it should all be stopped and that he is clever enough to do better by cashing in and going alone.
Whether private or public or private or vol sector, defined benefit pensions are something that exists in a much narrower form now than when I started work in 1985. There is also a sense of collective responsibility that comes with being part of a db fund, which is nothing like holding individual investments.

Lti
"most public sector pensions are completely inflation proof"
I'd suggest that is a myth. NHS pensions are funded solely through current contributions. Local Authority pensions are all asset backed, have all reduced to CPI from RPI and the point is these are not immune to failing. I imagine the Civil Service one is bullet proof but cant vouch for it. Don't know about fire and police.
On balance I feel very lucky to have had, and continue to have the opportunity to pay into a final salary scheme. It is still open to all if they choose a lower salary than is available in the private sector.

Lti
My voluntary sector final salary scheme is RPI but was capped at 5% pa many years ago. It will no doubt become more precarious during times of such high inflation as it is a closed fund.
My public sector scheme shifted to CPI though I still receive RPI on pre 2014 contributions and transfers in that I made. It is not "inflation proof", but it has benefitted from year upon year compounding.
The private pension I have managed to save is a tiny fraction of the value, by comparison.
I am overweight in Lloyds, but 3/4 of that is held in an ISA which is aimed at paying the mortgage and a 1/4 in a SIPP.
I am not successful enough at investing to take the risk of cashing in defined benefit pensions, but good luck to those that are.