Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: UK to force people to pay into retirement accounts

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercoin View Post
    SS already exist in the UK. But since that is a ponzi scheme as it is in America that's destined to collapse, the govt wants to make people working in the private sector save for their own retirement while still paying into the SS ponzi.

    Eventually those who do save will be deemed rich enough and not eligible to receive SS.

    Eventually it will be a forced onto the people with no opt-out at the behest of bankers who want to get their hands on your money. If they happen to lose it gambling in the stock market, just holler for a bailout and money printing and guess what - YOU pay for it.

    So count the number of time you pay for your own retirement:
    1) into the SS ponzi
    2) into a govt workers pension
    3) into this forced savings scam
    4) into bailouts & money printing to bailout your own savings
    5) into the banking "industry's" salary & bonuses

    I got a better idea. Put your money into gold coin and keep it out of sight.
    Its not the government that wants you to save for your own retirement it is the companies that should still provide benefit plans like they used to.

  2. #12

  3. #13

    Default

    Can I add that these pensions schemes are completely separate from the state pension scheme.

    They are run by private investment companies, overseen by pension trustees drawn from both the employer and employees.

    The main downside at the moment is that it's very difficult to make any money out of any investment portfolio. Then, when you do retire, the annuities paid out tend to be miserably low as a result of the central banks artificially lowering interest rates.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grinningdog View Post
    Its not the government that wants you to save for your own retirement it is the companies that should still provide benefit plans like they used to.
    Do you mean companies like Kodak, Hostess, AA, AMF, GM, Chrysler, et al?
    To Be, Do. Descarte
    To Do, Be. Sartre
    Do be do be do. Sinatra

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    9,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
    Do you mean companies like Kodak, Hostess, AA, AMF, GM, Chrysler, et al?
    Yep the retirement plans should have been fully funded and the retires would have their pensions. Maybe they were I haven't checked. I know you meant this as a sm--- reply but it does not change the fact that companies should offer retirement plans.

  6. #16

    Default

    You must have confused the gold plated govt pension schemes with private sector reality.

    The gravy train by its very nature dictates that for every person riding on it, another 4 or 5 have to be paying for it. Its simply unsustainable and bound to jump the tracks - my guess is sooner rather than later.

    Companies these days will move overseas if their costs rise beyond a certian point. I've literally seen entire factories transplanted overseas lock, stock & barrel in **UNDER** one week. The days of a "secure" job let alone defined pension schemes are long gone. There's some guy on the other end of the world willing to do the job for 5 to 6X less pay and no pension, benefits..etc.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grinningdog View Post
    Yep the retirement plans should have been fully funded and the retires would have their pensions. Maybe they were I haven't checked. I know you meant this as a sm--- reply but it does not change the fact that companies should offer retirement plans.
    The US Constitution declares we are entitled to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere does it say that a lifelong pension is an entitlement. It may come under the pursuit of happiness part, but good luck with that.

    I'm with Silvercoin on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Silvercoin View Post
    . The days of a "secure" job let alone defined pension schemes are long gone. There's some guy on the other end of the world willing to do the job for 5 to 6X less pay and no pension, benefits..etc.
    To Be, Do. Descarte
    To Do, Be. Sartre
    Do be do be do. Sinatra

  8. #18

    Default

    How many private industries and companies still offer pensions nowadays? Almost all require you to go the 401k scamway. Not many unless they are legacy ones from the good old days.
    What's the Frequency, Kenneth?

    432Hz

  9. #19

    Default

    It's not the responsibility of a company to provide a pension/retirement plan. That's just something to attract talent. It's not the governments job to do it either. SS is just a ponzi scheme that has just about ran its course. Let people handle their own funds. Encourage personal responsibility through tax breaks.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ectophile View Post
    At the risk of being picky, workers can opt out if they want to. So nobody is forced to pay in if they don't want to.

    The change is that you will be enrolled in a company pension scheme unless you say you don't want to be, rather than having to opt in as at present.

    But never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

    From my point of view a company pension scheme is a no-brainer. For every 5 I pay in, my employer pays in over 6. It's free money. Even if the pension scheme's rubbish, I still make money out of it.
    At the other side of the channel the employer part shrunk since early '90's, the very reason for govt pushing retirement schemes ON TOP of the 'default' one.
    the void

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •