ChatterBank2 mins ago
"Pensions hammered by EU....."
According to the front of the Express pension pots will be affected by some EU rule change or other. Anyone any more info on this, couldn't find much on it myself. Thanks.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
this is probably it (not that the Mail's much better than the Express)
http://www.dailymail....-salary-pensions.html
Final salary pensions seem to be just about dead already without any help from the EU, so I don't know how much difference this will make
http://www.dailymail....-salary-pensions.html
Final salary pensions seem to be just about dead already without any help from the EU, so I don't know how much difference this will make
Pensions will be far greater affected by interest rates being close to 0%
// Pensions 'decimated' by low interest rates, warns Saga
Record low interest rates and rising inflation are damaging pensions and will push more pensioners into poverty, a leading expert has warned.
// Pensions 'decimated' by low interest rates
Speaking at the Bank of England today, Ros Altmann, director-general of the Saga Group, warned that historically low interest rates could lead to another financial crash that would leave pension pots “decimated”.
She explained poor returns were prompting savers to take greater risks with their pensions as they approached retirement.
Savers have seen their rate of returns hit rock bottom as the Bank of England has maintained interest rates at just 0.5 per cent since March 2009. //
http://www.telegraph....rates-warns-Saga.html
Of course, it is easier for the Express to blame the EU than Cameron and Osborne.
// Pensions 'decimated' by low interest rates, warns Saga
Record low interest rates and rising inflation are damaging pensions and will push more pensioners into poverty, a leading expert has warned.
// Pensions 'decimated' by low interest rates
Speaking at the Bank of England today, Ros Altmann, director-general of the Saga Group, warned that historically low interest rates could lead to another financial crash that would leave pension pots “decimated”.
She explained poor returns were prompting savers to take greater risks with their pensions as they approached retirement.
Savers have seen their rate of returns hit rock bottom as the Bank of England has maintained interest rates at just 0.5 per cent since March 2009. //
http://www.telegraph....rates-warns-Saga.html
Of course, it is easier for the Express to blame the EU than Cameron and Osborne.
http://www.thisismone...d=497860&in_page_id=6
It's EU proposals called Solvency II - aimed at making sure that annuity providers set aside enough money now that we're living longer.
AXA's decided it doesn't like it and is pulling out.
Basically the EU is trying to stop the banks taking such big gambles with our economic future.
By the time the Express has finished with this - they're robbing your pension!
Blatant anti-EU propaganda
It's EU proposals called Solvency II - aimed at making sure that annuity providers set aside enough money now that we're living longer.
AXA's decided it doesn't like it and is pulling out.
Basically the EU is trying to stop the banks taking such big gambles with our economic future.
By the time the Express has finished with this - they're robbing your pension!
Blatant anti-EU propaganda
Now I’ve seen the Mail headline kindly provided by jno it seems there is a connection to the EU meddling in the internal affairs of individual nations (there’s a surprise!) although this is not the same story as that run by the Express.
It seems that additional costs, in the form of some sort of security deposit, are to be loaded on to UK firms who still want to administer Final Salary pension schemes. This of course will apply to all member States despite the fact that in the UK, as far as I know, there has been no collapse of a significant pension scheme since strict safeguards were put in place following the Robert Maxwell/Mirror Group debacle.
As usual the EU is tarring the entire continent with the same brush and pension funds in the UK – which are among the most heavily regulated and protected in the world - will be treated in the same way as insurance companies – a totally inappropriate comparison. Also as usual, the proposals will have unintended consequences entirely opposite to that they set out to achieve. As the Mail says, those employers still running FS schemes will simply not bother.
None of this will affect the Civil Service “pension scheme” which is not funded in the conventional fashion but which simply uses current contributions topped up by a generous stipend from the taxpayer to pay its liabilities.
It seems that additional costs, in the form of some sort of security deposit, are to be loaded on to UK firms who still want to administer Final Salary pension schemes. This of course will apply to all member States despite the fact that in the UK, as far as I know, there has been no collapse of a significant pension scheme since strict safeguards were put in place following the Robert Maxwell/Mirror Group debacle.
As usual the EU is tarring the entire continent with the same brush and pension funds in the UK – which are among the most heavily regulated and protected in the world - will be treated in the same way as insurance companies – a totally inappropriate comparison. Also as usual, the proposals will have unintended consequences entirely opposite to that they set out to achieve. As the Mail says, those employers still running FS schemes will simply not bother.
None of this will affect the Civil Service “pension scheme” which is not funded in the conventional fashion but which simply uses current contributions topped up by a generous stipend from the taxpayer to pay its liabilities.
Oh yes New Judge it's outrageous that the EU should expect companies to register a deposit on final salary schemes.
We wouldn't want anything to stand in the way of people like Robert Maxwell or the (Rover) Phoenix groups playing fast and loose with pension funds would we?
The EU is again standing up to protect the ordinary people around Europe and you just can't stand it can you?
We wouldn't want anything to stand in the way of people like Robert Maxwell or the (Rover) Phoenix groups playing fast and loose with pension funds would we?
The EU is again standing up to protect the ordinary people around Europe and you just can't stand it can you?
I don’t think it is simply anti-EU propaganda, jake.
If I have it right the EU is proposing that employers operating FS schemes are treated in exactly the same way as insurance companies who provide annuities. If this is so it is absolutely inappropriate. FS Pension schemes are protected by a completely different set of rules to those governing annuity providers. But the EU intends to tar them both with the same brush as it might be too difficult to differentiate between UK run FS schemes, FS schemes run from elsewhere where the level of protection may not be the same, and annuity providers (who often have a greater corporate level of risk because of the diversity of their business). UK FS providers will therefore be forced to pay for two lots of protection and this may well push even more FS schemes into jeopardy.
The issue is that in its quest for (often unnecessary) harmonisation the EU seems unwilling or unable to differentiate between the various arrangements which already exist in individual member states. Far from propaganda, the item highlights yet more unnecessary meddling in internal affairs on a topic which is already well covered by our own arrangements).
In short, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
If I have it right the EU is proposing that employers operating FS schemes are treated in exactly the same way as insurance companies who provide annuities. If this is so it is absolutely inappropriate. FS Pension schemes are protected by a completely different set of rules to those governing annuity providers. But the EU intends to tar them both with the same brush as it might be too difficult to differentiate between UK run FS schemes, FS schemes run from elsewhere where the level of protection may not be the same, and annuity providers (who often have a greater corporate level of risk because of the diversity of their business). UK FS providers will therefore be forced to pay for two lots of protection and this may well push even more FS schemes into jeopardy.
The issue is that in its quest for (often unnecessary) harmonisation the EU seems unwilling or unable to differentiate between the various arrangements which already exist in individual member states. Far from propaganda, the item highlights yet more unnecessary meddling in internal affairs on a topic which is already well covered by our own arrangements).
In short, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
[Two Part Answer]
They have so-called “black holes” in them jake mainly because of the highly dubious nature of the FRS17 valuation method. However, that is of no consequence in this argument because the issue here is not whether the schemes are robust but what might happen in the event of their failure.
As I said, jake, rigorous regulation was put in place to prevent a recurrence of the Maxwell affair and I believe that these arrangements (which include the UK’s Pension Protection Fund) have worked perfectly well.
As far as I know nobody in MG Rover has lost their pension as a result of the Phoenix giveaway and subsequent insolvency. It is true that negotiations are still ongoing between the Protection Fund’s administrators and the insolvency agents to establish how much of the shortfall the fund will have to make up. However, that is to be expected and I cannot believe that if the payments were to come from an EU-wide fund that those negotiations would have been concluded any swifter. There is no indication that any employee or pensioner will lose any of their entitlements as far as I can see.
They have so-called “black holes” in them jake mainly because of the highly dubious nature of the FRS17 valuation method. However, that is of no consequence in this argument because the issue here is not whether the schemes are robust but what might happen in the event of their failure.
As I said, jake, rigorous regulation was put in place to prevent a recurrence of the Maxwell affair and I believe that these arrangements (which include the UK’s Pension Protection Fund) have worked perfectly well.
As far as I know nobody in MG Rover has lost their pension as a result of the Phoenix giveaway and subsequent insolvency. It is true that negotiations are still ongoing between the Protection Fund’s administrators and the insolvency agents to establish how much of the shortfall the fund will have to make up. However, that is to be expected and I cannot believe that if the payments were to come from an EU-wide fund that those negotiations would have been concluded any swifter. There is no indication that any employee or pensioner will lose any of their entitlements as far as I can see.
[Part Two]
I don’t care, quite honestly, how the EU treats citizens and companies in the rest of Europe. I only care about how it treats people and companies in the UK. On this particular issue the people of the UK do not need the EU to stand up for their rights. Their rights are already more than adequately protected. The effect of “standing up for them” in the way proposed will simply mean that the ever diminishing number of workers that do still enjoy the benefits of a FS pension scheme will diminish ever more rapidly. Their protection which already exists in the UK will not be enhanced in any way.
Companies will not pay a double insurance premium to protect their employees’ and pensioners’ benefits in much the same way as you would not pay twice to insure your house. If the action of people standing up for their rights (which they did not ask for and did not need) results in their pension scheme closing, I’m sure those affected will be lauding the virtues of their EU protectors from the rooftops.
I don’t care, quite honestly, how the EU treats citizens and companies in the rest of Europe. I only care about how it treats people and companies in the UK. On this particular issue the people of the UK do not need the EU to stand up for their rights. Their rights are already more than adequately protected. The effect of “standing up for them” in the way proposed will simply mean that the ever diminishing number of workers that do still enjoy the benefits of a FS pension scheme will diminish ever more rapidly. Their protection which already exists in the UK will not be enhanced in any way.
Companies will not pay a double insurance premium to protect their employees’ and pensioners’ benefits in much the same way as you would not pay twice to insure your house. If the action of people standing up for their rights (which they did not ask for and did not need) results in their pension scheme closing, I’m sure those affected will be lauding the virtues of their EU protectors from the rooftops.
Well done Gromit, blame Cameron. Short memory mate so let me remind you.
1) The interest rates are set independantly(as you constantly reminded us when Noo labour were in)
2) this all started on Bottlers watch. Cameron is still sweeping up his cr*p.
It is your beloved labour that caused alot of this spending money they did not have, failing to control Banks and ploughin on with a disatous multicultural experiment.
Personally I am unsure of the justification of interest rates affecting pensions greatly. It is highly unlikey any Pension (apart from those just coming to fruition) will be in cash.
1) The interest rates are set independantly(as you constantly reminded us when Noo labour were in)
2) this all started on Bottlers watch. Cameron is still sweeping up his cr*p.
It is your beloved labour that caused alot of this spending money they did not have, failing to control Banks and ploughin on with a disatous multicultural experiment.
Personally I am unsure of the justification of interest rates affecting pensions greatly. It is highly unlikey any Pension (apart from those just coming to fruition) will be in cash.
1 to 16 of 16
