www.direct.gov.uk/workplacepensions Great. Another tax on the employer. Everyone should provide for their future of course, and I don't have a problem as such with employers providing pension advice, especially when their workforce is of the type that generally wouldn't think to do provide their own pension. What I disagree with, however, is that the employer must now contribute towards it! Again, I wouldn't mind if it was a deduction from your salary, but it's an ADDITIONAL payment that the employer has to make. Employers already pay an additional National Insurance contribution ON TOP of the employee's deduction, and now he has to do it with your pension too. I simply don't see why your employer needs to fund YOUR retirement. It's your future - YOU need to provide for it.

www.direct.gov.uk/workplacepensions Great. Another tax on the employer. Everyone should provide for their future of course, and I don't have a problem as such with employers providing pension advice, especially when their workforce is of the type that generally wouldn't think to do provide their own pension. What I disagree with, however, is that the employer must now contribute towards it! Again, I wouldn't mind if it was a deduction from your salary, but it's an ADDITIONAL payment that the employer has to make. Employers already pay an additional National Insurance contribution ON TOP of the employee's deduction, and now he has to do it with your pension too. I simply don't see why your employer needs to fund YOUR retirement. It's your future - YOU need to provide for it.

I don't see why I need to help fund bankers' pensions, but I have.

I don't recall your complaints about that. Or about taxpayers subsidising company profits via in-work benefits.

One of the few things I actually liked about living in Australia is their Super Annuation Fund system. Your employer has put a minimum of 9% of your salary into your chosen Super Annuation Fund and you can top it up as you please. Problem I've now got is I've got about £10,000 sat in a super fund in a country I don't live in that I can't get access to until I retire as I've got permanent residency. I could do with that cash at the moment

I complained a hell of a lot about the Government (Tax payer) buying the banks out, as I'm sure you do recall.

As I said, I've no issue whatsoever with the idea of providing for your future. I feel, however, that the public needs to be educated about this, and the onus should be on THEM to make adequate arrangements for their retirement.

However, as we all know, the general public can't be trusted with such matters, so once again - as with tax payments themselves - it all comes down to the employer. And I can see why - it's much easier for the government to regulate and chase an educated few than it is to chase up every Tom, Dick and Harry. It's about making it easier on themselves, and limiting their chasing to those percieved to have a few quid to give them. You can't sue someone with no money, after all.

The real problem is highlighted on the website. If someone earns £12k and they put in £40pcm, the employer has to then contribute £30pcm, which in isolation isn't a lot of money. But multiply that by the number of employees you're paying for, and it mounts up. Most businesses are not multi million pound organisations, and savings will need to be made elsewhere in order to pay for it, which will no doubt cause another stink.

Where does it all end?

I was thinking also about in-work benefits that end up subsidising extremely big and profitable companies that refuse to pay a living wage.



And presumably they'll also have to be educated about how to avoid dodgy schemes and miss-selling for when they try to take responsibility?

But it's okay – regulation is bad.

Please explain how someone on minimum wage (less than the recognised living wage), who already receives in-work benefits such as working tax credits, child tax credits and housing benefits (all taxpayer subsidies to employers), is supposed to find the money needed to fund their retirement?

Hang on, I've not said ANY of that. You're referring to a very small percentage of companies here. The vast majority of British businesses are small and not overly profitable, run by people who just want to earn a living.


Obviously. Why wouldn't they?


The right regulation is wonderful and essential - the problem here, is that they're regulating the wrong people.

Maybe you should have a word with your beloved conservative party and ask them to start regulating the "right" people then?

They could make a start with closing loopholes that allow £bns of corporation and income taxes avoided by large corporations and wealthy individuals. Then they could turn to other large companies that can afford to pay substantial shareholder dividends, while seemingly unable to afford to pay their employees a living wage that doesn't require topping up by the taxpayer.

I'm not saying anything, especially the above, is perfect. But putting more and more onus on small businesses to cough up money they might not have is NOT the way forward. Especially when the businesses and individuals you describe get away with it.

I'm not getting involved in the 'living wage' debate, Cod'ead. It's been done to death. Making an employer pay another (at least) £30 a month (if the employee is on only £12k pa) is not going to do anything to raise wages, is it? In any case, if you start a pension early enough, you can get yourself a good payout on retirement having paid in a modest amount per month, though I appreciate, that doesn't help people of, say, my age and older.

Surely a better solution would be to encourage the payment higher salaries for the lowest paid workers, whilst educating and eventually compelling people to make their own pension arrangements? This will take a long time - more than the lifetime of any government, and will need to be taught in schools, but you have to start somewhere. Again, safety nets are great and - to a point - essential, but I just feel that the bigger the safety net is, the fewer people will take the responsibility of looking after themselves, knowing that if they do nothing they'll still sit pretty.

Sadly, there is no quick fix, and no 'one' solution. And you can't solely blame the Conservatives for that.

I didn't say you had.



There are people on this forum (not me) who have stated that such companies deserve to go to the wall then, if chased out by big businesses.



So, who is going to pay for and organise this education; when is it going to happen etc?

And what was wrong with the olden days where people saved in institutions they could trust. These were called banks.

What we seem to be seeing more and more now, is the onus being shifted onto the individual for knowing more about a product than the person selling it to them. Because companies have become less and less trustworthy, as the profit motive has utterly replaced much in the way of a sense of service.

This isn't just me saying this: we've had a number of posters here in the last year or so who have commented that, when they started work, their company encouraged you to take pride in the service you provided. Now, it's just about making a quick buck.

So why do I, for instance, have to pay the price for this, in terms of needing to be educated (by whom and when?) so that not only will I be a pensions expert – I'll be more expert than pensions professionals, because the effers cannot be trusted?

And there, in a nutshell, you have a great deal of the problem in this country today.



The claim has been made that regulation is bad for the economy. Yet protection is clearly needed from an industry that has shown that it cannot be trusted over many things, including pensions.

So you're happy to ignore people who simply cannot hope to afford to contribute to a pension, then – and certainly you want to ignore them in this discussion.

Well, no not really. The biggest problem is people like you who point out all the so-called problems and harp on about how it won't work, then simply end the discussion instead of offering potential solutions or contributing to a reasoned debate on the subject. It's that attitude that stands in the way of any significant progress being made.

What's wrong with the education taking place in schools, or even better, all the money the government spends on adverts saying you can claim this and claim that and claim the other, could be redistributed into a 'you can do this for yourself' type of campaign.

Again, this is only PART of what COULD be done if only people would be a bit more pro-active.

Read the rest of my post for the answer, Mintball.

You seem to suffer from selective eyesight.

As I understand it, this applies to all employers.
Therefore, those who compete in foreign markets may have an issue about the extra cost negatively affecting their competitiveness abroad ... but surely those who only compete in the domestic market can't make that claim when their competitors have the same overhead?

It does come back to the issue of a living wage.

Having been an employer in the past I do have some sympathy and it is a case of the government (any government) abdicating its responsibilty to provide health and social care for its citizens, after all without that what the hell else is a government for ?

There is no doubt that the state pension model is unsubstainable but so is the model that states that if you donate a chunk of your income to a private investor every month then when you retire you'll have zillions to fall back on - truth is you won't have anything like what you think you will and if all goes according to plan Aviva will manage to lose more money from my private pension scheme this year, so thats alright then.

You can educate all you like but if employers are allowed to continue relying on taxpayer subsidies, instead of paying a living wage, then no amount of education on pensions will make up for a lack of money to be able to afford to invest in them.

And as far as offering potential solutions to the problem, your solution appears to be "don't do it in the first place"

The trouble is with your "pro-active" thinking is that it doesn't address the basic issue.
Which is that the lowest paid don't get paid enough to save for a pension.
Basically, that gives us four choices ...
1) Pay them more and let them provide their own pension.
2) Let the state provide a pension
3) Make employers contribute to their pensions
4) Let 'em starve or die of hypothermia.

What's your answer? "Pro-actively" shift some advertising budget to encourage an option which doesn't exist.

That a reasoned-enough debate for you?

In answer to Robinson's question, the government have sat on a huge issue for along time and belatedly are passing the hot potato to others. It's too little, too late. Someone has to pay - and the only people who can are the relatively wealthy, either via taxation or as employers. The minimum contributions for 'ers and 'ees will escalate quickly.

The best way to deal with the issue is to dramatically raise the reirement age. When state pension came in the average man only received it for something like 18months. We need to keep people in employment until they are c. 80 if they are fit. Better for them, better all round. So, get the older generation working in customer facing roles on shop checkouts, etc.

Where do you suggest all these jobs come from?

Mintball economics - paying people creates "growth" 'cos they have money to spend. Idiot! Rant. Rant.

Sounds like a bad time to be investing in retirement homes, "Matron, can you make sure that Mr Wilkinson gets his medication before 7am tomorrow please, he's got to be on the 7.30 bus to B&Q in the morning, he's on earlies".

"And pack him up some more pads, you know how sitting at those tills goes straight to his bladder".

When I got made redundant at the back end of 2007 I had to take a £5k paycut to get a new position. A far bigger impact however was the loss of the final salary pension that I had been in. My current employer, a sub - division of a large multi-national, pays the grand sum of £25/month towards my pension (I earn £30k). If you opt not to join the company scheme you do not even get this meagre contribution added to your pay. Due to the aforementioned cut in pay I can't afford to pay in as much to my pension myself as I would like. I am glad that I have got 12 years in final salary pension schemes as the likelihood of me finding an employer with a decent pension is diminishing by the minute so I am overjoyed that the government will be making my employer contribute more to my pension (it's just a petty that the current muppets in charge of the country have delayed its introduction to smaller companies).

I know the likes of Dally will blame Gordon Brown for taxing pension funds, but the real problems arose under the Tories when many funds were in surplus and companies took payment holidays. When it became time to start coughing up again as the funds went into deficit due to poor returns, taxation and pensioners living longer the employers viewed it as an extra expense that came off their profits and share holders dividends, rather than an expense that they had traditionally paid for, and scrapped final salary schemes and in some case company pensions alltogether.

Both my brothers work in the public sector and have far better pension schemes than myself. Yes, I am jealous, but I don't begrudge them getting such a good pension. The real scandal in this country isn't how good public sector pensions are, but how poor the private sector pension provision has become.