“you are heavily subsidised by private business”

Yes. And private business (namely the banks) are now heavily subsidised by the tax payer, of which I am one. Fred Goodwin got his pension courtesy of the state bailing him out, but it seems that I’m not going to get mine – or certainly not on the terms I signed up to. I take your point Lola but I can’t help but feel I am being punished for the mistakes of politicians and bankers who have mismanaged the economy and who are decimating everyone elses pensions whilst featherbedding their own old age. What incentive do I have to continue to save in a pension? Will someone change the rules again in another ten years and force me to work till I drop dead? Meantime, Wayne and Waynetta Slob down the road who contribute zilch and live on benefits their whole lives will get looked after by the state when they get old. What do you suggest we do with them?

You are confusing your prudency – well, luck or foresight in pickig a state employees career at a time when they were certian of super-profits – with the profligacy of the all the state employees pensions schemes, MP’s and everyone else.

Yes, you’ve done as you should and saved into an employers scheme. But the way that it is run and funded and its rules mean that you are heavily subsidised by private business. Why is this right? In fact as a state employee the PAYE notionally deducted from your pay is merely a rebate to the rest of us. the fact that it and your NI neatly nets off against the cost of your pensions is just a double insult.

The fact that all thsi started in 1947 is not relevant as such. Actually Barbara Castle made the whole thing a whole lot worse in the late 1970′s. And many people have been saying sinec 1947 that it was unsustainable.

Now, I sympathise with you that you should not have your already accrued benefits reduced. But, the rot has to be stopped now and that can be done very simply by closing all the schemes and placing everyone into a money purchase arrangement. Existing members will have their deferred benefits preserved and retired members will continue to be paid.

In regards to the BSOAP and SERPS/S2P they should both be scrapped and replaced by some form of citizens dividend based on lvt. Mind you this also menas radically shrinking the size of the state payroll.

Aware you were talking about the Old rates system, where what you paid depended upon the rentable value, that the Council put on your house. This was the method used to calculate rateable value.

Clearly this was also a nonesensnse, as the rentable value of your house means nothing at all.

Sometimes people who live in large houses, do not earn large sums of money, they may also be retired or widowed.

You could have a small house of multiple occupation which is the other end of the coin.

The sensible route is for every one to make a contribution to the services or area in which they live.

This can either be a Poll tax type tax, or local sales tax (as in the US)

I accept that the current situation is unsustainable. However, the point I am trying to get across is that were I to join most of my friends in simply not making ANY provision at all for my old age, then the state would have to pick up the tab. Shouldn’t we look at that anomaly before taking the axe to those of us who have been prudent and followed the rules?

Absolutely correct, life was so much more simple in the 60′s and 70′s.

Its far too complicated now, mainly due to government interference complicating everything.

I only went to a bog standard Secondary Modern School and was not interested in anything else at the time other than playing football, but the basic education I got there and then, appears vastly superior to what most comprehensive schools offer now.

Having served a proper time served apprenticeship (as opposed to some of the micky mouse training offered today) having then realised the value of education (night school and day release at Poly tech) and having now worked in my own business for many years, I can truthfully say that disipline, and a solid education in the basic subjects, especially mathematics, gave me a very good grounding for the rest of my life.

What price that today ?

Now, I well appreciate that this is not your fault, you have been conned as much as the rest of us in private business, but it cannot go on. Reform, genuine reform is desperately needed. The costs must be capped and then reduced.

I have posted above that I do not accept that a contractual variation of benefits accrued to date is acceptable, but it is entirely correct and legal to change the basis on which you accrue all future benefits.

And although I understand that you might consider the structure of your existing scheme to be part of your employment contract I think force majeur could be cited as the driver for the change. Or if further arguement ensues you could be laid off and required to re-apply for your job on new pension terms.

A New Labour mantra is that money purchase schemes leave pensioners at the mercy of the ‘uncertainty of markets’. This shows breathtaking ignornance both as to simple economics and as to how money purchase pension funds can be strucutred to defend older pension savers from the necessary volatily of the equity markets. It’s either ignorance or deceit.