The Budget promises us that there will “shortly” be a green paper on a “simple, contributory, flat-rate” state pension that is above the level of the means-tested Guarantee Credit. The appearance of the green paper has been rumoured for some months but this the first confirmed sighting, with the Chancellor suggesting that such a pension would be around £140 per week. We obviously need to wait for the green paper to see what is being proposed but the statement in the Budget Report that any changes would be “designed so as not to increase public spending dedicated to state pensions” means that we should not get our hopes up high. In particular, it is clear that the proposed changes will only apply to future retirees, which means it will do nothing for the millions of current pensioners who are already in poverty. And the only reason why even this limited measure will work is that the majority of new pensioners already get at least £140 per week from their state pension, simply because most have build up a second earnings-related pension since 1978 on top of the basic pension. In other words, the Government’s plans are only feasible because of the changes to state pensions that Barbara Castle and the Labour government introduced more than 30 years ago.
Bryn Davies's Archive
-
Bryn Davies
-
Bryn Davies
Nigel has already looked in detail at the IoD sponsored report of the Public Sector Pensions Commission. As he says, the report is based on challenging current assumptions about how you measure in today’s money the cost of pension commitments that go many years into the future.
Their main complaint is that the Government currently assesses the cost of unfunded pension liabilities using a discount rate of 3.5%. They say that this is “artificial” and that it involves “accounting sleights of hand”. There is even the suggestion that the current figures lack “honesty”.
Suggesting that the Treasury, who produce these figures, is dishonest is fighting talk. One would expect, therefore, that the report would give considerable attention to describing and attempting to rebut the basis upon which the figure of 3.5% is chosen. But far from it. The report simply says that the continued use of 3.5% is “unexplained”. But this statement is simply untrue.
-
Pensions & Investment
The difference between an arithmetic mean and a geometric mean. And why it matters.
Bryn Davies
Understanding the difference between an arithmetic mean and a geometric mean might sound like something that can be left to statisticians. But now, because of a change proposed in the Budget, it has become crucially important to the great majority of current and prospective pensioners. The difference means that they are all going to be worse off in their retirement.
The change is the Government’s proposal to adopt the CPI rather than the RPI for the indexation of benefits, tax credits and public service pensions from April 2011. So the change directly affects every current or future pensioner who is entitled to a State Second Pension (previously SERPS) or to a pension from a public service pension – that means almost everyone who has ever been employed.
