So what did the Brexit supporters gain?

[sandyf]

The ordinary people of Britain who came out of their homes in record numbers (70 - 80% in some areas) to vote in the referendum could not care less about the FTSE, world trade or exchange rates because few people on the minimum wage even if they've got a steady job care about finance or can afford a holiday. They've got bigger fish to fry.

It's the effects of immigration that brought them out of their street doors on the 23rd of June. Now they'll expect and demand something done about it or UKIP will be making ground in future elections with or without Farage in the driving seat.

Agreed, and that was fueled by the Brexit claims over Turkey.

"Campaigners for Brexit claim the brake on Turkey's tortuous EU accession talks will now be lifted and 75 million Turks will soon be free to live and work in the EU.

But the government says that is nonsense.

So who is right?"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35832035

I think that one has now been answered.

[MissAndry]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Edited July 16, 2016 by MissAndry

[ljd1308]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Government pensions were always doomed to fail without massive population increases.

I find it interesting that most people don't realise that....

With the population boom after ww2, there was always going to be a larger number of people retiring around this time and therefore receiving the pension. In the UK 12% of your income goes to your pension. The aged pension is approx. 12k GBP a year.

No if you earn the current average salary in the UK(25K now and 8k 30 years ago....so if anything these figures will look worse) you will contribute 3000GBP per year(or thereabouts), working for 40 years that gives you 120k.

If you live for 20 years you require 240k. So either your pension has to have been invested well with a high return(unlikey as gov pensions are usually invested as safely as possible) or you need someone else to top you up.....

The only people who can top you up are current workers, but if there are less of them then it is unmanageable....the simplest solution is more tax payers which means more immigration, oddly something people wanted to leave Europe were keen on.

Ongoing, the burden will reduce as there hasn't been(and most likely wont be) another sudden jump in birthrates, so it will even itself out, but right now someone needs to pay for the record number of retirees.

Which means people who voted for Brexit with immigration being one of the reasons, were essentially voting to reduce the pension benefits for everybody including themselves. When this is added to the extra cost of doing anything outside of Britain the only way it will be a success is if Britain is suddenly the most resource rich country in the world(or found some other magical source of income)....but then they would have to accept foreign investment and workers which kinda defeats the purpose.

[yogi100]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Government pensions were always doomed to fail without massive population increases.

I find it interesting that most people don't realise that....

With the population boom after ww2, there was always going to be a larger number of people retiring around this time and therefore receiving the pension. In the UK 12% of your income goes to your pension. The aged pension is approx. 12k GBP a year.

No if you earn the current average salary in the UK(25K now and 8k 30 years ago....so if anything these figures will look worse) you will contribute 3000GBP per year(or thereabouts), working for 40 years that gives you 120k.

If you live for 20 years you require 240k. So either your pension has to have been invested well with a high return(unlikey as gov pensions are usually invested as safely as possible) or you need someone else to top you up.....

The only people who can top you up are current workers, but if there are less of them then it is unmanageable....the simplest solution is more tax payers which means more immigration, oddly something people wanted to leave Europe were keen on.

Ongoing, the burden will reduce as there hasn't been(and most likely wont be) another sudden jump in birthrates, so it will even itself out, but right now someone needs to pay for the record number of retirees.

Which means people who voted for Brexit with immigration being one of the reasons, were essentially voting to reduce the pension benefits for everybody including themselves. When this is added to the extra cost of doing anything outside of Britain the only way it will be a success is if Britain is suddenly the most resource rich country in the world(or found some other magical source of income)....but then they would have to accept foreign investment and workers which kinda defeats the purpose.

That's the theory but many of these imported workers do not work and if they do pay so little into the pot that it is of negligible benefit. That would help to explain why out state pension is one of the lowest in Western Europe which also experienced a population boom.

Many EE workers send what money they don't need back to their families and various benefits they claim like child benefit and working tax credits possibly outweigh what they pay in. Their willingness to work for small money puts our own people on the dole so that also has to be paid for. The minimum wage means nothing and is easily avoidable if you work on a casual basis.

[cumgranosalum]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Government pensions were always doomed to fail without massive population increases.

I find it interesting that most people don't realise that....

With the population boom after ww2, there was always going to be a larger number of people retiring around this time and therefore receiving the pension. In the UK 12% of your income goes to your pension. The aged pension is approx. 12k GBP a year.

No if you earn the current average salary in the UK(25K now and 8k 30 years ago....so if anything these figures will look worse) you will contribute 3000GBP per year(or thereabouts), working for 40 years that gives you 120k.

If you live for 20 years you require 240k. So either your pension has to have been invested well with a high return(unlikey as gov pensions are usually invested as safely as possible) or you need someone else to top you up.....

The only people who can top you up are current workers, but if there are less of them then it is unmanageable....the simplest solution is more tax payers which means more immigration, oddly something people wanted to leave Europe were keen on.

Ongoing, the burden will reduce as there hasn't been(and most likely wont be) another sudden jump in birthrates, so it will even itself out, but right now someone needs to pay for the record number of retirees.

Which means people who voted for Brexit with immigration being one of the reasons, were essentially voting to reduce the pension benefits for everybody including themselves. When this is added to the extra cost of doing anything outside of Britain the only way it will be a success is if Britain is suddenly the most resource rich country in the world(or found some other magical source of income)....but then they would have to accept foreign investment and workers which kinda defeats the purpose.

That's the theory but many of these imported workers do not work and if they do pay so little into the pot that it is of negligible benefit. That would help to explain why out state pension is one of the lowest in Western Europe which also experienced a population boom.

Many EE workers send what money they don't need back to their families and various benefits they claim like child benefit and working tax credits possibly outweigh what they pay in. Their willingness to work for small money puts our own people on the dole so that also has to be paid for. The minimum wage means nothing and is easily avoidable if you work on a casual basis.

" many of these imported workers do not work and if they do pay so little into the pot that it is of negligible benefit." - a contradiction in terms.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as the replies.

[MW72]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Not sure why you think the Conservatives killed pensions but for my own pension it was Blair and Brown who did the killing.

I had a pension with the engineering federation I was associated with. Most companies payed into the pension. Along came Labour and decreed that all companies should provide pensions. Sounds like reasonable plan except in my trade at that time you moved with the work. Maybe 3 months at 1 company then 2 years at another if you were lucky.

The upshot was that all of these companies that used to pay into one industry based pension now had their own schemes. This meant that no one would pay into my original pension fund. I had a choice of having lots of small pension funds or none at all. I chose not to bother with the pensions and invested the money I saved into my property. At the time I even contacted the Federation to ask if I could make voluntary contribution to keep the fund topped up as my employer would not invest in the fund. I was told I could only make voluntary contributions on top of what my employer paid and as he wasn't paying that meant I could pay my own contribution.

I would like to think that is not the case any more.

[ljd1308]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Government pensions were always doomed to fail without massive population increases.

I find it interesting that most people don't realise that....

With the population boom after ww2, there was always going to be a larger number of people retiring around this time and therefore receiving the pension. In the UK 12% of your income goes to your pension. The aged pension is approx. 12k GBP a year.

No if you earn the current average salary in the UK(25K now and 8k 30 years ago....so if anything these figures will look worse) you will contribute 3000GBP per year(or thereabouts), working for 40 years that gives you 120k.

If you live for 20 years you require 240k. So either your pension has to have been invested well with a high return(unlikey as gov pensions are usually invested as safely as possible) or you need someone else to top you up.....

The only people who can top you up are current workers, but if there are less of them then it is unmanageable....the simplest solution is more tax payers which means more immigration, oddly something people wanted to leave Europe were keen on.

Ongoing, the burden will reduce as there hasn't been(and most likely wont be) another sudden jump in birthrates, so it will even itself out, but right now someone needs to pay for the record number of retirees.

Which means people who voted for Brexit with immigration being one of the reasons, were essentially voting to reduce the pension benefits for everybody including themselves. When this is added to the extra cost of doing anything outside of Britain the only way it will be a success is if Britain is suddenly the most resource rich country in the world(or found some other magical source of income)....but then they would have to accept foreign investment and workers which kinda defeats the purpose.

That's the theory but many of these imported workers do not work and if they do pay so little into the pot that it is of negligible benefit. That would help to explain why out state pension is one of the lowest in Western Europe which also experienced a population boom.

Many EE workers send what money they don't need back to their families and various benefits they claim like child benefit and working tax credits possibly outweigh what they pay in. Their willingness to work for small money puts our own people on the dole so that also has to be paid for. The minimum wage means nothing and is easily avoidable if you work on a casual basis.

You are right,it is the theory and it doesn't work perfectly.

But i think you are wrong about the contributions of immigrants(I can look up the figures if you want?), the vast majority do work ad contribute taxes and NI and in general contribute to society. You still get some who take advantage of the country more than they benefit....but that is a really small number and the good far outweighs the bad.

And while they may initially be willing to work for a pittance, that is because they are so grateful to be in a much better country they will do anything to stay, but after a few years they will move away from those jobs to higher paying ones where they will contribute more. Same as a 16 year old kid who works at Mcdonalds....they are just getting experience, they won't work there at minimum wage their whole lives(hopefully).

I just think rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, the bath water should be cleaned.

[Jip99]

You are right,it is the theory and it doesn't work perfectly.

But i think you are wrong about the contributions of immigrants(I can look up the figures if you want?), the vast majority do work ad contribute taxes and NI and in general contribute to society. You still get some who take advantage of the country more than they benefit....but that is a really small number and the good far outweighs the bad.

And while they may initially be willing to work for a pittance, that is because they are so grateful to be in a much better country they will do anything to stay, but after a few years they will move away from those jobs to higher paying ones where they will contribute more. Same as a 16 year old kid who works at Mcdonalds....they are just getting experience, they won't work there at minimum wage their whole lives(hopefully).

I just think rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, the bath water should be cleaned.

Couldn't agree more.

Brexit wasn't about immigration and certainly wasn't about repatriating anyone.

What Brexit does give the opportunity to is look at sensible immigration policy geared to the needs of the country and based on the ability of immigrants to support themselves. I rarely hold Thailand up as an example of 'good' but the UK could do a lot worse than use Thailand's immigration rules as a start point.

What is equally, if not more important, is to address is the welfare system. There seem to a number of unfair situations that have been reported that defy commonsense. No immigrant should be entitled any welfare payments....... again, look at what Thailand provides for expats - you pay your own way if you are not a citizen of that country.

[ljd1308]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Not sure why you think the Conservatives killed pensions but for my own pension it was Blair and Brown who did the killing.

I had a pension with the engineering federation I was associated with. Most companies payed into the pension. Along came Labour and decreed that all companies should provide pensions. Sounds like reasonable plan except in my trade at that time you moved with the work. Maybe 3 months at 1 company then 2 years at another if you were lucky.

The upshot was that all of these companies that used to pay into one industry based pension now had their own schemes. This meant that no one would pay into my original pension fund. I had a choice of having lots of small pension funds or none at all. I chose not to bother with the pensions and invested the money I saved into my property. At the time I even contacted the Federation to ask if I could make voluntary contribution to keep the fund topped up as my employer would not invest in the fund. I was told I could only make voluntary contributions on top of what my employer paid and as he wasn't paying that meant I could pay my own contribution.

I would like to think that is not the case any more.

I am not too familiar with private pensions in the UK(hence not saying much about it), but in Australia with have "private pensions" but it is called superannuation.

Basically the government brought in a rule that employers had to contribute a set amount(9%) of your salary into a super account you cannot access until retirement. The way it was set was designed so that you employee doesn't lose anything, they basically receive 9% more and it goes into a retirement fund(obviously some employers take advantage and pay a salary 9% less so the total package is the same), you can then choose where to invest these funds. This also can cause problems, for example the people that were close to the retirement age when the markets dropped lost alot of money and did not have the time to make it back.....but that is their risk as they chose the investment(really you can take risks in the early years, but when you start to get closer you should inverst in safer options)

You can also have any employer pay into any fund or as you move jobs you can transfer out of one and into the other and you can make extra contributions tax free too(a good way to avoid tax if you are close to retirement age, get you salary put directly into you super)

Then once retirement age comes along you have a nice little nest egg and if you don't have enough the government then tops up with their own pension.

It alleviates the pressure on the government funds and ensures we can all have a relatively comfortable retirement(so whenever you here an Aussie complain about the pension ask them about their super....they should have some).

I literally love Super(I used to work in the industry) and think it is a wonderful thing that helps everyone involved(except maybe the employer who has to pay into it), but there are still a couple of things that are not perfect.

The biggest one is you cannot be told what and how to spend you super and once it is spent you are eligible for the government pension(not that i want the gov to tell me how to spend my money).

So if I so chose, when I retired I could withdraw in a lump sum, buy a gogo bar and lose it all in 6 months and then claim the full government pension....whereas the actual idea is you spread it out over your expected life term to give yourself a stable income without relying on the government.

I don't know how long ago this problem you had was, but I would assume(hope?) they were just teething problems and there is a more flexible(Aussie) way of doing it now.

[ljd1308]

You are right,it is the theory and it doesn't work perfectly.

But i think you are wrong about the contributions of immigrants(I can look up the figures if you want?), the vast majority do work ad contribute taxes and NI and in general contribute to society. You still get some who take advantage of the country more than they benefit....but that is a really small number and the good far outweighs the bad.

And while they may initially be willing to work for a pittance, that is because they are so grateful to be in a much better country they will do anything to stay, but after a few years they will move away from those jobs to higher paying ones where they will contribute more. Same as a 16 year old kid who works at Mcdonalds....they are just getting experience, they won't work there at minimum wage their whole lives(hopefully).

I just think rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, the bath water should be cleaned.

Couldn't agree more.

Brexit wasn't about immigration and certainly wasn't about repatriating anyone.

What Brexit does give the opportunity to is look at sensible immigration policy geared to the needs of the country and based on the ability of immigrants to support themselves. I rarely hold Thailand up as an example of 'good' but the UK could do a lot worse than use Thailand's immigration rules as a start point.

What is equally, if not more important, is to address is the welfare system. There seem to a number of unfair situations that have been reported that defy commonsense. No immigrant should be entitled any welfare payments....... again, look at what Thailand provides for expats - you pay your own way if you are not a citizen of that country.

Benefit payments are an issue for everybody, not just immigrants though....there are all sorts that take advantage of it and to single them out is just a case of finding an easy target.

The problem with cracking down on this is cost vs reward. Let's say for example 5% of people on benefits were not entitled to them, how much would it cost to catch and prosecute those 5% vs how much they are actually taking out? It is just guess work, but the number of new employees/investigator's/solicitor's that you would need to employ on a permanent basis would most likely outweigh how much you are giving away that you shouldn't be....I am sure that is taken into account.

If you were to make cuts with broad strokes then you have alot of people getting cut who were entitled to their benefits. I am not saying they should no crack down, but it is alot easier said than done, usually we(the public) won't wake all the issues into account and the advantage the political right has over the left is that they can(and do) win votes based purely on emotion. The can come out and say in one sentence that it is immigrants causing problems, but in order to refute that the left has to spend time finding the facts and figures to disprove that which most people are not interested in.

Just as a live example of how it is not just immigrants:

My sister(in Australia, born and raised) left a good school where she was receiving a god education at 16 to work in KFC only to realise after about 6 months she no longer wanted to work there.

She then took advantage of Australia's education support and went to a government funded tafe course to train to become a licensed real estate agent.

Once that course was complete she went to once interview and did not get that job, she is now 34, single with 3 kids(2 father's) on all sorts of benefits and has not worked a single day since leaving KFC.....

Oh, and she still lives at home with her mummy(my mum) taking care of her and her kids.

Or, a nice Muslim family of 5 with 1 adult child and 2 younger children coming here as immigrants. The 2 men go out and find the best work they can, though it is low paying as they are new to the country, unqualified and have little English.

The wife then receives government assistance to raise the 2 kids.

Then in this story 16 years later the 2 working adults have better paying jobs, the wife has a part time job and the 2 younger kids have just complete Uni and moving into decent jobs in the workforce.

I would think a country needs more of the 2nd type of citizen and less of the first. In my experience(growing up in immigrant rich western Sydney) there are alot more immigrant families that fit my description(or similar) than "Aussie" kids like my sister who take advantage.

[MW72]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Not sure why you think the Conservatives killed pensions but for my own pension it was Blair and Brown who did the killing.

I had a pension with the engineering federation I was associated with. Most companies payed into the pension. Along came Labour and decreed that all companies should provide pensions. Sounds like reasonable plan except in my trade at that time you moved with the work. Maybe 3 months at 1 company then 2 years at another if you were lucky.

The upshot was that all of these companies that used to pay into one industry based pension now had their own schemes. This meant that no one would pay into my original pension fund. I had a choice of having lots of small pension funds or none at all. I chose not to bother with the pensions and invested the money I saved into my property. At the time I even contacted the Federation to ask if I could make voluntary contribution to keep the fund topped up as my employer would not invest in the fund. I was told I could only make voluntary contributions on top of what my employer paid and as he wasn't paying that meant I could pay my own contribution.

I would like to think that is not the case any more.

I am not too familiar with private pensions in the UK(hence not saying much about it), but in Australia with have "private pensions" but it is called superannuation.

Basically the government brought in a rule that employers had to contribute a set amount(9%) of your salary into a super account you cannot access until retirement. The way it was set was designed so that you employee doesn't lose anything, they basically receive 9% more and it goes into a retirement fund(obviously some employers take advantage and pay a salary 9% less so the total package is the same), you can then choose where to invest these funds. This also can cause problems, for example the people that were close to the retirement age when the markets dropped lost alot of money and did not have the time to make it back.....but that is their risk as they chose the investment(really you can take risks in the early years, but when you start to get closer you should inverst in safer options)

You can also have any employer pay into any fund or as you move jobs you can transfer out of one and into the other and you can make extra contributions tax free too(a good way to avoid tax if you are close to retirement age, get you salary put directly into you super)

Then once retirement age comes along you have a nice little nest egg and if you don't have enough the government then tops up with their own pension.

It alleviates the pressure on the government funds and ensures we can all have a relatively comfortable retirement(so whenever you here an Aussie complain about the pension ask them about their super....they should have some).

I literally love Super(I used to work in the industry) and think it is a wonderful thing that helps everyone involved(except maybe the employer who has to pay into it), but there are still a couple of things that are not perfect.

The biggest one is you cannot be told what and how to spend you super and once it is spent you are eligible for the government pension(not that i want the gov to tell me how to spend my money).

So if I so chose, when I retired I could withdraw in a lump sum, buy a gogo bar and lose it all in 6 months and then claim the full government pension....whereas the actual idea is you spread it out over your expected life term to give yourself a stable income without relying on the government.

I don't know how long ago this problem you had was, but I would assume(hope?) they were just teething problems and there is a more flexible(Aussie) way of doing it now.

I think you would correct to say they were just teething problems and I am sure things are more flexible now. This happened to me back in 1997 when I wad 7 years into my career. 4 of those years were as an apprentice so my contributions were minimal. We had a similar set up in that I would contribute 5% of my salary and my employer would double that. All tax free. At the time the industry pension was one of the best around but due to Government not thinking things through it was taken away from me.

[ljd1308]

I think you would correct to say they were just teething problems and I am sure things are more flexible now. This happened to me back in 1997 when I wad 7 years into my career. 4 of those years were as an apprentice so my contributions were minimal. We had a similar set up in that I would contribute 5% of my salary and my employer would double that. All tax free. At the time the industry pension was one of the best around but due to Government not thinking things through it was taken away from me.

I would hope so, I think it was similar when it was first introduced in Australia with alot of restrictions...but they have gradually been changed to get us to here.

The other huge benefit of this system I didn't mention was that all super funds have insurance built into them, so everyone with a super fund(pretty much everyone in Australia) has life and permanent disability insurance that is at a set level based on your income.

You can also have your own private insurance on top if this.

[dick dasterdly]

The private-pensions short-fall is a story which will run and run, on top of the unfunded government-pension, it's very bad news. And the government advice not-to-panic, well if ever there was an alarm-signal, then that is it !

Personally I just hope they hang on long enough, for me to be able to draw my money out (in a tax-efficient way), before it all falls apart.

There is no efficient way to draw your money out of a final salary company pension.

If you mean private pension, they were always a failure and always will be, mainly because most of them are run by crooks.

As for the continued claims that people live longer, mainly lies.

People have had broadly the same natural length of life for the past 4,000 years.

(excluding child mortality and death due to war, etc.)

I wonder how the statistics would stand up if abortions were included as 'deaths'.

Hargreaves Lansdown say,

The UKs gold-plated pension system is starting to look tarnished."

The UK still has a gold plated pension system? I though they had nearly all ended more than 10 years ago. Killed by the Conservative government.

So this little grizzle must be about investing money from previously accumulated assets. The ones that Brown was stealing from.

Well if the Labour government stole from pension funds in the past, up to the current government to make up the shortfalls.

Government pensions were always doomed to fail without massive population increases.

I find it interesting that most people don't realise that....

With the population boom after ww2, there was always going to be a larger number of people retiring around this time and therefore receiving the pension. In the UK 12% of your income goes to your pension. The aged pension is approx. 12k GBP a year.

No if you earn the current average salary in the UK(25K now and 8k 30 years ago....so if anything these figures will look worse) you will contribute 3000GBP per year(or thereabouts), working for 40 years that gives you 120k.

If you live for 20 years you require 240k. So either your pension has to have been invested well with a high return(unlikey as gov pensions are usually invested as safely as possible) or you need someone else to top you up.....

The only people who can top you up are current workers, but if there are less of them then it is unmanageable....the simplest solution is more tax payers which means more immigration, oddly something people wanted to leave Europe were keen on.

Ongoing, the burden will reduce as there hasn't been(and most likely wont be) another sudden jump in birthrates, so it will even itself out, but right now someone needs to pay for the record number of retirees.

Which means people who voted for Brexit with immigration being one of the reasons, were essentially voting to reduce the pension benefits for everybody including themselves. When this is added to the extra cost of doing anything outside of Britain the only way it will be a success is if Britain is suddenly the most resource rich country in the world(or found some other magical source of income)....but then they would have to accept foreign investment and workers which kinda defeats the purpose.

That's the theory but many of these imported workers do not work and if they do pay so little into the pot that it is of negligible benefit. That would help to explain why out state pension is one of the lowest in Western Europe which also experienced a population boom.

Many EE workers send what money they don't need back to their families and various benefits they claim like child benefit and working tax credits possibly outweigh what they pay in. Their willingness to work for small money puts our own people on the dole so that also has to be paid for. The minimum wage means nothing and is easily avoidable if you work on a casual basis.

Additionally, they're taking low-paid jobs from Brit. workers - who would have been paid more - and consequently paid more tax.

[dick dasterdly]

I think you would correct to say they were just teething problems and I am sure things are more flexible now. This happened to me back in 1997 when I wad 7 years into my career. 4 of those years were as an apprentice so my contributions were minimal. We had a similar set up in that I would contribute 5% of my salary and my employer would double that. All tax free. At the time the industry pension was one of the best around but due to Government not thinking things through it was taken away from me.

I would hope so, I think it was similar when it was first introduced in Australia with alot of restrictions...but they have gradually been changed to get us to here.

The other huge benefit of this system I didn't mention was that all super funds have insurance built into them, so everyone with a super fund(pretty much everyone in Australia) has life and permanent disability insurance that is at a set level based on your income.

You can also have your own private insurance on top if this.

Sounds like the old company pensions in the UK (although my main company pension was 2/3rds final salary, contribution free...). Of course employees could 'top' these up with AVCs.

Depressingly, wealthy EU countries enjoyed far better payouts from private pension 'savers' than the UK..... As far as I know, this hasn't changed proving Brit. financial companies get away with a whole lot more than those in some other EU countries .

[Rc2702]

As an American looking on this from afar- I believe the citizens of the UK have spoken. There is not going to be any destruction of the UK. While the pound and stock markets are reacting in a shocked manner today it simply is that the markets do not like a change of status quo.

The truth is that it will take at least 2 years to manage the exit and the Prime Minster has not even yet invoked the exit clause indicating that the exit is now in effect. I am sure he will do this in a few months. I would suggest that the pound will rebound sooner than later as well as the stock market. The UK is a strong, important and vibrant country and economy. Also, remember, that the UK is not withdrawing from the Common Market which predates the EU. I would suggest all the doom and gloom is overplayed and once the dust settles it will be business as usual. The difference being is that British citizens will be charting the future of the UK and not unelected officials in Brussels. That is what the vote was actually about and that is what the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom want. I respect it and support their choice.

So you are saying free trade will continue but it appeared the EU members (against) themselves threatened the free trade markets availability if we left. If free trade continues then it was the right decision and if that had been the case from the outset I doubt anyone would have voted to leave. I do hope you are right.

[sandyf]

As an American looking on this from afar- I believe the citizens of the UK have spoken. There is not going to be any destruction of the UK. While the pound and stock markets are reacting in a shocked manner today it simply is that the markets do not like a change of status quo.

The truth is that it will take at least 2 years to manage the exit and the Prime Minster has not even yet invoked the exit clause indicating that the exit is now in effect. I am sure he will do this in a few months. I would suggest that the pound will rebound sooner than later as well as the stock market. The UK is a strong, important and vibrant country and economy. Also, remember, that the UK is not withdrawing from the Common Market which predates the EU. I would suggest all the doom and gloom is overplayed and once the dust settles it will be business as usual. The difference being is that British citizens will be charting the future of the UK and not unelected officials in Brussels. That is what the vote was actually about and that is what the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom want. I respect it and support their choice.

So you are saying free trade will continue but it appeared the EU members (against) themselves threatened the free trade markets availability if we left. If free trade continues then it was the right decision and if that had been the case from the outset I doubt anyone would have voted to leave. I do hope you are right.

The point regarding market availability is to do with the single market, all other markets are available under the WTO regulations. The UK could become an EEA member and as such remain a trading partner in the single market but the sting in the tail is that they would have to accept the principle of free movement, one of the biggest objections to the EU that the leave campaign put forward.

It will be up to the Brexit team to decide if the UK remains in the single market or not.

[7by7]

The UK is already an EEA member, as are all other EU members.

All EEA members are bound by the freedom of movement regulations, which arise from EEA treaties not EU ones.

So to remove ourselves from the freedom of movement treaties and regulations we will have to leave the EEA as well as the EU.

It is not up to the Brexit team to decide; it is for them to negotiate the best agreement they can get.

Anyone who thinks we can remain in the single market for goods without the free movement of people as well is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

[dick dasterdly]

The UK is already an EEA member, as are all other EU members.

All EEA members are bound by the freedom of movement regulations, which arise from EEA treaties not EU ones.

So to remove ourselves from the freedom of movement treaties and regulations we will have to leave the EEA as well as the EU.

It is not up to the Brexit team to decide; it is for them to negotiate the best agreement they can get.

Anyone who thinks we can remain in the single market for goods without the free movement of people as well is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

On the other hand, the Brit. electorate that voted are not keen on open borders - as they've seen other workers from poor countries coming in and taking their jobs on a lower wage. This is, I think, their main concern.

EU individual countries will also not be happy at losing the UK as a customer if tariffs are applied.

We can only wait and see how things transpire.

Will the Brit. govt. risk the electorates' hate by coming up with a plan that still has open borders? Will the EU end up imposing tariffs despite individual countries opposition to this? How will the EU make up the financial deficit once the UK leaves? Will other countries call their own referendum?

Edit - I forgot to mention the main question! Will the overwhelmingly Brit. 'remain' govt. find a way to come up with another option than Brexit? I've no doubt they're doing their best to find a way to do this, without alienating the voters - on whom they rely .

Lots of questions, and only time will tell.

Edited July 19, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[chiang mai]

Beware increasing prices and costs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/brexit-bargains-scented-by-asia-s-rich-following-pound-s-plunge

And another one gone:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/19/central-london-travelodge-sold-for-423m-as-overseas-buyers-swoop/

Edited July 19, 2016 by chiang mai

[MissAndry]

So the Chinese are grabbing British assets in the current 10% off sale.

So why didn't they swoop and buy Australian assets in the current 20% off sale?

[mfd101]

So the Chinese are grabbing British assets in the current 10% off sale.

So why didn't they swoop and buy Australian assets in the current 20% off sale?

They've been doing precisely that as the Oz dollar collapsed over the last 3 years - expensive mansions all around Sydney harbour, city apartments everywhere, farmlands, part of Darwin harbour, coal mines and every other kind ... an excellent investment in the Oz economy.

[Ricardo]

So the Chinese are grabbing British assets in the current 10% off sale.

So why didn't they swoop and buy Australian assets in the current 20% off sale?

They have been doing just that ... a random sample includes :-

https://www.rt.com/business/340471-china-buy-australia-territory/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-resources-poised-to-buy-australian-cancer-services-business-genesis-care-1468917725

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-china-company-buying-into-virgin-can-give-lessons-in-service-to-australian-airlines-2016-5

http://www.businessfirstmagazine.com.au/chinese-buy-australias-largest-dairy-farm/11640/

https://bluenotes.anz.com/posts/2015/12/what-else-is-china-buying-in-australia/

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/chinese-to-buy-victorian-dairy-company-20160504-gom94n.html

[sandyf]

The UK is already an EEA member, as are all other EU members.

All EEA members are bound by the freedom of movement regulations, which arise from EEA treaties not EU ones.

So to remove ourselves from the freedom of movement treaties and regulations we will have to leave the EEA as well as the EU.

It is not up to the Brexit team to decide; it is for them to negotiate the best agreement they can get.

Anyone who thinks we can remain in the single market for goods without the free movement of people as well is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The UK is a member of the EEA by default.

It will be up to the Brexit team to decide if they feel it is in the national interest to negotiate to remain a member which would probably be subject to approval by the other 27 members.

Current rhetoric would indicate that the plan is to remain in the single market. This would give the PM a 'get out of jail card' on the immigration figures under a 'best deal' arrangement. It would also take the pressure off the NHS, about a third of UK born nurses are due to retire in next couple of years.

[sandyf]

High Court to hear legal challenge to Brexit

Senior judges Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queen’s bench division, and Mr Justice Cranston will hear that a judicial review application has been lodged over whether Theresa May, the prime minister, has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 or whether she will need a vote in parliament approving withdrawal.

https://next.ft.com/content/52e562fe-4cff-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

[GuestHouse]

Another Brexit pledge bites the dust:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/20/may-and-rudd-distance-themselves-from-cameron-pledge-to-cut-immigration

[Ricardo]

High Court to hear legal challenge to Brexit

Senior judges Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queen’s bench division, and Mr Justice Cranston will hear that a judicial review application has been lodged over whether Theresa May, the prime minister, has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 or whether she will need a vote in parliament approving withdrawal.

https://next.ft.com/content/52e562fe-4cff-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

I wonder whether either of the main parties dare risk an 'open vote' on this one ?

[GuestHouse]

High Court to hear legal challenge to Brexit

Senior judges Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queens bench division, and Mr Justice Cranston will hear that a judicial review application has been lodged over whether Theresa May, the prime minister, has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 or whether she will need a vote in parliament approving withdrawal.

https://next.ft.com/content/52e562fe-4cff-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

I wonder whether either of the main parties dare risk an 'open vote' on this one ?

May is clearly waiting for the impacts to bite.

If house prices fall (as is expected) it will be game over for Brexit.

[7by7]

The UK is already an EEA member, as are all other EU members.

All EEA members are bound by the freedom of movement regulations, which arise from EEA treaties not EU ones.

So to remove ourselves from the freedom of movement treaties and regulations we will have to leave the EEA as well as the EU.

It is not up to the Brexit team to decide; it is for them to negotiate the best agreement they can get.

Anyone who thinks we can remain in the single market for goods without the free movement of people as well is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The UK is a member of the EEA by default.

It will be up to the Brexit team to decide if they feel it is in the national interest to negotiate to remain a member which would probably be subject to approval by the other 27 members.

Current rhetoric would indicate that the plan is to remain in the single market. This would give the PM a 'get out of jail card' on the immigration figures under a 'best deal' arrangement. It would also take the pressure off the NHS, about a third of UK born nurses are due to retire in next couple of years.

Not really by default, as when the EEA was formed, in 1994, the agreement was that membership was open to EU members and EFTA members. All EU members agreed to join, as did three of the four EFTA members; the one not joining being Switzerland.

So there are currently 31 EEA member states; including the UK.

However, Switzerland did sign a bilateral agreement on the free movement of goods and people.

So the freedom of movement regulations apply to Switzerland as well as the 31 EEA members.

If the UK wants to remain a member of the EEA, or like Switzerland sign a bilateral agreement without being a member, I can see no way that the other 30 states would agree to such an agreement unless the UK also agreed to the free movement of people.

Interesting point about the state of nursing in the NHS; mainly due to the British government not providing enough student nurse places. According to the Royal College of Nurses in 2015/16 there were 30 applicants on some courses for every place available; and that's just in one region! The number qualifying each year does not even make up for natural wastage, let alone increasing demand from an ageing population.

But, apart from showing that the UK needs workers from other EEA states, and elsewhere, not really anything to do with Brexit.

One further point, though, which has been ignored by many; on both sides.

The Brexit campaign made much of the net migration figure.

This figure, of course, includes British citizens leaving the UK; many of them to live in other EEA countries.

Obviously, if the UK does leave the freedom of movement agreements, these British citizens will no longer be able to do so as easily; they will require the appropriate visa; just as EEA nationals will in order to live in the UK.

So how much will Brexit effect the net migration figure, even if the UK does succeed in withdrawing from the freedom of movement agreements?

Vey little, if at all, I would suggest.

[i claudius]

High Court to hear legal challenge to Brexit

Senior judges Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queens bench division, and Mr Justice Cranston will hear that a judicial review application has been lodged over whether Theresa May, the prime minister, has the power to serve notice of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 or whether she will need a vote in parliament approving withdrawal.

https://next.ft.com/content/52e562fe-4cff-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

I wonder whether either of the main parties dare risk an 'open vote' on this one ?

May is clearly waiting for the impacts to bite.

If house prices fall (as is expected) it will be game over for Brexit.

But unfortunately they rose, this month so another myth gone to the wall