No, I know they cannot, yet, beat it out of you – but I bet they'd like to! But they can shove us in clink.

And there was I thinking that tax needn't be taxing. When was corporal punishment reintroduced to beat it out of reluctant payers?

"For the avoidance of doubt Mrs Lola is a Teacher and benefits from a state pension" – and therefore Mrs Lola's lectures to the rest of us on tax and pensions hold about as much moral authority as the Major Government when it instructed us to "get back to basics" whilst members of it's cabinet and MPs were variously engaged in corruption and deviant sexual practices.

To answer the other points.

" (I notice you failed to deal with the analogy I made about a mortgage provider asking for money after the 25 years)." All mortgage contractes include an 'exceptional circumstances' clause, of which some lenders are now taking advantage which may well ahve th effect of extending the term. As I said pensions are promises, not guarantees and technically they are deferred pay. If your employer can't afford your pay he may sack you or he may offer you a reduced level of pay and continue to employ you. It's the same thing. Oh, and I know that the Governemnt has been using phrases when offering you employment like 'We offer a pension that includes various guarantees' – but of course they were lying to you. You will also have heard various politicians on the media banging on about 'guaranteed final salary pensions'. But not any more you shouldn't. More than one has been told off for saying that.

"… investment companies and brokers are safe places to place my savings. Well excuse me for not taking you at face value but I don’t know you from Barlow Clowes so my point holds true, there are enough examples of rogue financial companies to make the average investor justifiably wary about where he puts his cash…" It's a free market and you are responsible for your actions. Freedom means taking decisons on your own knowledge. Do the research. You'll find someone or some company. And you absolutely shouldbe very wary indeed. I don't see the problem. If you want 'guarantees' you can use National Savings, and of course get miserly rates.

"As an aside I have also worked extensively in the private sector – earning money for the wealth creating side of the economy – so spare me the condescending lectures" Excellent. Glad to hear it.

I actually agree with a lot of your reply but we don't live in your aspirational world, we live in the real world where the government promised people like me a fixed pension based on fixed contributions – and now they're attempting to welch on that deal. It's not the fault of the employee and the pension holder that they expanded the public sector too much and are now struggling to foot the bill and it's not fair that they should unilaterally fiddle the terms of the arrangement part way through the contract (I notice you failed to deal with the analogy I made about a mortgage provider asking for money after the 25 years).

You agree with me that banks are untrustworthy but you suggest that most (and in particular your own) investment companies and brokers are safe places to place my savings. Well excuse me for not taking you at face value but I don't know you from Barlow Clowes so my point holds true, there are enough examples of rogue financial companies to make the average investor justifiably wary about where he puts his cash.

As an aside I have also worked extensively in the private sector – earning money for the wealth creating side of the economy – so spare me the condescending lectures.

I am in the position of being aged 63 and looking for work. With various lump sums due maturing over the next few years, I suppose I could muddle through to retirement, but I am simply not minded to. What is a bit dispiriting is when you know that you have the ability to do a job, you have the right type of CV, but the dreaded Human Resources Department, with their rigid mentality and box ticking attitude, won't allow you to get to an interview with the head of the relevant division. Mind you, I can understand and support the idea of giving jobs to youngsters wherever possible. Their unemployment rate is 20% and they are treated abominably by this country and its rubbishy education system.

Oh, and by the way you 'followed government advice'. Quite. We all have been conned into believing in it at some time in our lives. Given that I long ago decided that ALL governments were essentially clueless in the aggregate it was much the best thing to ignore them as far as possible and to pay as least tax as possible. Nevertheless they were recently nearly successful in killing me when I was semi-forced to follow the 'advice' of a government health quango. So think yourself lucky they are only reneging on your pensions promise.

Back to pensions. The local police officers (a fine body of men and women) pay about 11% into their scheme but I still have to pay upwards of 50% (or about 1/3rd of total police service costs) for their scheme through council tax. The contribution made by my local council to the County police budget is about £22m and the contribution I make to the police pension scheme is about £11m.

Agreed you can't trust banks but you can trust investment companies and most 'brokers' (it depends on the broker – but as this is alledgedly a free society you are expected to research for a reliabel one of those for yourself). Ask Mr Redwood about trusting investment companies. He is something to do with Evercore Asset Mnagement. And since I have been running client money as a 'broker' for a lot of years, and a client has just been into my office about another matter and complimented me on how we have managed his money I absolutely know you are wrong.

Two, private sector final salary pension schemes. Right, where to start. Well, Norman Lamont started the taxing the dividends bit. Under Thatcher the funds were threatened with taxation if they carried on making 'excess returns'. Brown totally and finally screwed them with excess regulation, stupid compensation costs and the dividend tax credit removal. In the case of the 'excess returns' one has to understand the long term nature of investing and how 'excess returns' will average out over time. In other words there is no such thing as a short term 'excess return'. So the reasons for the failure of most private sector final salary schemes lie with government, and con artists and crooks like Robert Maxwell. There isn't reasonable space here for me to cover all that debacle.

In my case criticism of public sector schemes is not 'recent' at all. I have been unremitting in my criticism of profligate and unaffordable and disconnected public sector schemes. By disconnected I mean disconneected from economic reality. There is no connection with the pension rewards you get and the success or otherwise of UK plc. If you were in a money purchase scheme you may not be so keen to go along with lefty wealth destruction policies like wot we've 'ad for 13 years.

'Steal our money' My point is that it's demonstrably NOT your money. It is money earned by private business creating wealth and then taken from us under coercion and ultimate threat of violence or the loss of liberty to fund your wages and your pension.

And I have not recommended 'taking your money away from you'. I have said that at the very leat we close existing schemes to new members but continue to honour the pension promises and benefits accrued to that date by existing members. But my prefence is to close the schemes completely to new and existing members and honour existing benefits accrued. Pensions are deferred pay, so all that is happening is that you have less future pay deferred. That is the employers (me) payroll support costs of your schemes are reduced from about 25% to 8%. Be aware, using a money purchase scheme, and assuming a reasonable rate of return, annual gross contributions of about 12% to 15% (including reasonable sick pay and DIS benefits) of gross pay will buy you a 50% to 67% of final salary pension after a working life of 44 years. So why does the state schemes cost upwards of 31% per annum. They are indefensibly expensive.

For the avoidance of doubt Mrs Lola is a Teacher and benefits from a state pension. Mind you she entirely exploited by the education monopoly and wildly underpaid for what she does.

Quite, and neither can you trust banks, investment companies and brokers to look after your savings either, which rather begs the question "why bother saving?" After all, those who make no provision whatsoever for their old age are supported by the rest of us.

As an aside, might I also add that the undercurrent of resentment towards those of us with public sector pensions is misplaced. For many years we were the poor relations when private sector schemes were performing fantastically as stock markets boomed. Then (as tax payers) we were expected to bail out failed private and company pensions with the governments pensions guarantees and I don't recall a backlash from public sector unions at the time complaining that there members were compensating for mistakes in the private sector. And yet now we're treated like the scum of the earth simply for following the governments own advice and contributing to public sector pensions which promise a modest income in old age in return for decades of contributions.

I don't doubt that the country's finances are shot, but introducing what is effectively retrospective legislation to steal our money and our old age is nothing short of a scandal. I repeat my question to you that if your mortgage provider turned round to you at the end of your 25 year fixed term and demanded that you pay for another 10 years because of their mismanagement, what would your reaction be?

All pensions are an illusion of course – private and public – for at the end of the day, pensions come out of current resources. As we age, the value of our equity assets will fall and the dividends also as those of working age fall in number and become more valuable.