Reply to: "Brown to create 100,000 new jobs"

[OwlHoot]

Didn't McDoom actually say he wanted to create 100,000 jobs.

Fat lot of use that is - Anyone can want something, but it doesn't mean they'll get it.

[TimberWolf]

That's meaningless. You won't listen to anyone, will you. Are you AtW?

I have listened. I have heard it before. I am not AtW.

Now a question for you. Who do you think pays for today's pensions, private or otherwise? If the economy were to tank, do you think private pensions would be protected by being "ring-fenced by the law"?

[Doggy Styles]

Oh great, we should go the whole hog and make it the law that the economy is vibrant in 2020 too. As I said to the other great intellect, forget it. I've discovered from past experience you either get something like this or don't - and you don't.

That's meaningless. You won't listen to anyone, will you. Are you AtW?

[Cyberman]

Timberwolf is obviously a result of the current education system.

[Purple Dalek]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7810178.stm

On the advice of the horse he promoted to the cabinet last week.

Would someone please ask Brown to stop creating jobs. We'll all end up unemployed if he keeps creating them at this rate.

[TimberWolf]

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it simply isn't accurate. The funds are ring-fenced in law.

Oh great, we should go the whole hog and make it the law that the economy is vibrant in 2020 too. As I said to the other great intellect, forget it. I've discovered from past experience you either get something like this or don't - and you don't.

[Doggy Styles]

It matters little what pensions contributions are today because it is the next generation that has to support it. There is and can be no ring fence.

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it simply isn't accurate. The funds are ring-fenced in law.

Also, there is no difference between your "pensions contributions today" and "the next generation" that has to support it [sic]. They are one and the same thing.

[TimberWolf]

I see little point in digging through my data for someone who clearly has his head in the sand. You're right - labour did nothing to damage private sector pensions, and the funds collapsed because pension actuaries are idiots and too many old people suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

Don't worry about it, few people get it. As regards my saying GB never damaged private sector pensions, I never said that. I consider it a second order effect, and not worth confusing the discussion with. Pensions are doomed.

[PM-Junkie]

Any references on this? And if so, do you really trust the models?

I see little point in digging through my data for someone who clearly has his head in the sand. You're right - labour did nothing to damage private sector pensions, and the funds collapsed because pension actuaries are idiots and too many old people suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

[TimberWolf]

The risk models that the funds ran on had demographic changes built into them

Any references on this? And if so, do you really trust the models?

[TimberWolf]

The whole point is that the private and company funds WERE ring-fenced, in law. Mountains of lard, if you like.

It matters little what pensions contributions are today because it is the next generation that has to support it. There is and can be no ring fence.

[PM-Junkie]

What makes you believe that?

Because private sector pensions collapsed BEFORE demographic changes had any impact. The risk models that the funds ran on had demographic changes built into them - THAT'S WHY THEY WERE IN SURPLUS!!!!!!! Take away the surplus and the confidence in the risk models and you break the whole system. It is widely acknowledged that is what has happened...why do you refuse to see something that is so clear?

[Doggy Styles]

IMO it doesn't make any difference whether private pensions are (or were) solvent today - and goodness knows how someone calculated that they could meet commitments. Neither private nor public pension pots are like mountains of lard built up that can be drawn on later isolated from the economics of the day - those pensions will have to be supported by the next generation. And if the next generation can't afford to support them, they will collapse. I think that is what will happen for both private and public sector pensions.

No, you are still talking about state and public pension commitments. The whole point is that the private and company funds WERE ring-fenced, in law. Mountains of lard, if you like.

A combination of pensioners living (and taking money out) longer and Brown's tax hits have affected pension funds badly in recent years. So much so that many of them have closed to new members. So in those cases there are obviously NO new contributions by the current generation, but the fund is still there paying out pensions.

Maxwell demonstrated ring-fencing when he dipped into the Mirror Group fund to finance some other part of his empire. That was a criminal act, and when he was found out all hell broke lose. Literally in Maxwell's case. They had to tighten up the rules after that.

It's true that these funds take a hit during a recession and could have a shortfall. They are in a range of investments which could go down as well as up.

It's also true that some funds are badly managed. Equitable Life was a good example, and the reason was that they contractually promised too much to vesters.

[TimberWolf]

The collapse of private sector pensions has little to do with demographic changes..

What makes you believe that? Take an example in extremis: Let's say we have a population today comprised in majority by people paying money into well managed private pension schemes. Those people could perhaps estimate what their standard of living will be when they retire and how large their pension pots are going to be (their pensions companies could also provide some nice projections based on crystal ball gazing). What happens if there are no people in the working population tomorrow? What's the value of those carefully cultivated and well funded pensions now? You can't isolate yourself from the economics (or demographic) of tomorrow with a pension, IMO.

[Cyberman]

Sorry, but you clearly haven't a clue how private sector pensions work, or the differences between private sector pensions and public sector pension.

Private sector pension models are governed by actuaries, and pensions actuaries were actually doing a great job until 1997 - evidence the fact that private sector pensions funds were MASSIVELY in surplus at the time, even after the variuous recessions we'd been through. Private pensions were a very well run institution, and were the envy of the world. Fact.

Unfortunately the snot-goblin didn't understand how the pensions cycle worked and saw this surplus as his. The resulting £5 billion a year raid did far more damage than just steeling money out of the funds - it impacted confidence. How on earth does he expect actuaries to run an accurate risk model, which is crucial to the resilience of private sector pension funds, when you have the risk of a government coming in and steeling funds??

The collapse of private sector pensions has little to do with demographic changes. I guess you just see it as a huge coincidence that prior to 1997 private sector pensions were healthy and that they only started to collapse post-1997...and that it had nothing to do with the raid on pensions funds in 1997.

WHS !!!!!!!!!!! Well put !!!