Reply to: Have we done this already? Let the taxpayer insure your mortgage

[expat]

So how does making most pensioners worse off actually help them ? Please explain. Do you mean that the ploy is to make them have to continue working ?

I spoke of no ploy. I didn't say that anybody made pensioners worse off. I am not claiming that anybody is helping them.

Unsuccessful hijack, apparent relation to original must exceed 0%.

[Cyberman]

True, but not actually relevant to my point. It is not because of NL that Boomers around the western world have not saved enough. Hence why I feel hijacked: I made what I thought was a good, general, and important point about retirement and demographics in the west, and you took it and used it as a narrow anti-NL rant.


I'll make another one, and you can't blame that on NL: it doesn't matter how much people have saved, they will not all be able to afford a decent retirement because there simply will not be enough non-retired people to run the place and provide them with what they hope to have. People save for their retirement in order to be able to buy the goods and service that they want, but these come from the working population, which is shrinking. If retirees all save more, it just means that what they buy will cost more; until demand drops back to match supply again.

So how does making most pensioners worse off actually help them ? Please explain. Do you mean that the ploy is to make them have to continue working ?

[Bagpuss]

Hence why I feel hijacked: I made what I thought was a good, general, and important point about retirement and demographics in the west, and you took it and used it as a narrow anti-NL rant.

Have you only just noticed the MO of every post he EVER replies to?

[Cyberman]

Wasn't it Norman Lamont who first reduced the amount private sector companies could put into final salary pension schemes?

This was probably to stop directors embezzling company funds into their own pension schemes.

In normal company schemes, the company matches at least what the employee puts in. Thus it is very worthwhile being a member of a company scheme, but unfortunately most final-salary schemes have ceased because HMG's stealth tax since 1997 made them unaffordable.

[expat]

Labour have destroyed pensions except for gold-plated ones in the public sector. Not only will people not get proper pensions, but HMG will lose out on tax that they would have got through these people when their pensions are paid, and also have to pay additional benefits via pension supplements.
Thus a double whammy for all future taxpayers and the economy as pensioners' spending power is reduced.

True, but not actually relevant to my point. It is not because of NL that Boomers around the western world have not saved enough. Hence why I feel hijacked: I made what I thought was a good, general, and important point about retirement and demographics in the west, and you took it and used it as a narrow anti-NL rant.


I'll make another one, and you can't blame that on NL: it doesn't matter how much people have saved, they will not all be able to afford a decent retirement because there simply will not be enough non-retired people to run the place and provide them with what they hope to have. People save for their retirement in order to be able to buy the goods and service that they want, but these come from the working population, which is shrinking. If retirees all save more, it just means that what they buy will cost more; until demand drops back to match supply again.

[TheBigD]

True, but who has destroyed our pensions since 1997 and increased taxes our savings, by reducing the tax-free allowance when bringing in ISAs !! Failing to encourage saving and encouraging benefit-scroungers by discouraging marriage is one of the worst crimes of this HMG.

Wasn't it Norman Lamont who first reduced the amount private sector companies could put into final salary pension schemes?

[Cyberman]

As in, True.

The usual question: if you think NL did this, how did they manage to do it to everybody else too?

Labour have destroyed pensions except for gold-plated ones in the public sector. Not only will people not get proper pensions, but HMG will lose out on tax that they would have got through these people when their pensions are paid, and also have to pay additional benefits via pension supplements.
Thus a double whammy for all future taxpayers and the economy as pensioners' spending power is reduced.

[expat]

True, but who has destroyed our pensions since 1997 and increased taxes our savings, by reducing the tax-free allowance when bringing in ISAs !! Failing to encourage saving and encouraging benefit-scroungers by discouraging marriage is one of the worst crimes of this HMG.

As in, True.

The usual question: if you think NL did this, how did they manage to do it to everybody else too?

[Cyberman]

Still taxpayers money - that's the point.

If people lose their jobs they would get assistance anyway in the form of housing benefit that would pay their mortgage. There's no extra loss to the taxpayer here and in fact a possible gain as interest is deferred and capitalised, thus reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

[Cyberman]

There is much more to come as an entire generation retires without sufficient savings of their own. They will need to get somebody else's money to live (reasonably well) off, and they will have the voting power to do it.

True, but who has destroyed our pensions since 1997 and increased taxes our savings, by reducing the tax-free allowance when bringing in ISAs !! Failing to encourage saving and encouraging benefit-scroungers by discouraging marriage is one of the worst crimes of this HMG.

[Bagpuss]

Of course, I despise the way the government are trying to prop up a bubble they helped to create. But then the consequences of doing nothind are far wrose

[Ruprect]

It's more a blank cheque to the banks than individuals.

Still taxpayers money - that's the point.

[Bagpuss]

Toxic old git as opposed to Toxic debt

[expat]

There is much more to come as an entire generation retires without sufficient savings of their own. They will need to get somebody else's money to live (reasonably well) off, and they will have the voting power to do it.

[Bagpuss]

It's more a blank cheque to the banks than individuals.