Dispatches

Comments

1. Get rid of the central banks who are ripping us off with iflation. Work out 3% a year inflation over 20 years and you realise how much wealth you lose because of these fraudsters. I'm 25 and my pension will be in precious metals when this big fiat ponzi scheme fails.

   Posted by J on 17/10/2009 17:22:33

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
2. I didn't see the programme but have read through the comments and the coverage after the programme. As an employee you have a right to expect the company you work for to look after the money you invest into the pension scheme (its a position of trustfor your future). I can have examples in my life where my parents retired 5 years ago - with the benefit of my father's final salary scheme, paid into AVC scheme and an additional personal pension scheme as he didn't think he had enough for them to have a "comfortable retirement" (not travelling around the world but affording the bills and some treats). My parents are both financially prudent - saving for everything and no credit. My father-in-law had final salary pensions through working for the mirror group and readers digest - both schemes were raided by Robert Maxwell, he bounced back by paying into Equitable Life....! Now he distrusts the pension system, its too late to add any more money in as he's due to retire in 2 years and now its "cash" after his shares dived too. Where is the accountability for the companies taking pension holidays and Gordon Brown raiding company schemes? As Mr Brown got it so wrong as Chancellor how can he lead the country?

   Posted by Celia on 13/10/2009 13:46:01

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
3. Good in parts. Firstly, there really is no excuse for companies raiding their employees' pension funds before they go bust, leaving them without any pension fund, and especially when they are near to retirement age and unlikely to be able to find work to allow them to build up a respectable replacement fund. The employees have done the right thing, and one way or another, society should make sure they get most if not all of their expected pension - whether by increasing the levy, or taxation or whatever. Similarly there would be no excuse for employers removing already-earnt benefits; luckily this doesn't appear to be happening. If, as an employee, one isn't happy with employment conditions going forward, one is always at liberty to seek alternative employment. If enough employees voted with their feet, this would limit how tightly employers could squeeze their employees. Inertia is a dangerous thing. I believe it's more important that those who have retired have a living pension, so I support the three largest parties' pledge to restore the link between pensions and earnings at the cost of increasing the retirement age. Health and longevity is improving, so I believe that this is fair, and I'm 35. Private pension funds linked to the stock market will go down as well as up, so it's always wise not to put all your eggs in one basket. Yes, the tax relief on pension contributions is nice, but equal tax relief is also available on safe cash ISAs and was on there predecessor TESSAs. Just keep an eye on the interest rate and shop around if the rate paid falls below the rate of inflation (also for taxable savings, but remember to multiply the rate of inflation by 1.2 or 1.4 to get the minimum interest rate you need to earn to maintain value in real terms). I'm afraid that the Fujitsu employee and the council workers have completely unrealistic expectations of her retirement lifestyle and pension. I've saved and am saving significantly more, and I expect a secure and comfortable, but fairly unglamorous retirement; no round-the-world trips, fancy hotels and narrow boats for me! Finally, as for the 'Rich List' segments; as another poster has pointed out, the most senior people in both private and public organisations have higher salaries too. If there's a valid point here, it might be that we ought to think about whether or not we want to legally-mandate a maximum ratio between the lowest-paid and the highest-paid within an organisation. I'll let the economists fight over how that might work...

   Posted by ALEX on 12/10/2009 21:04:01

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
4. Fair point, but no, of course not, as they are mostly poorer. The prospect they face in old age is therefore generally worse than who have some sort of provision beyond what the state provides. I suppose my basic point was that the question of pensions cannot be divorced from the wider question of poverty. How do you gain if your neighbour gets a tax concession? My guess is that if there is a given amount of revenue to be raised you are likely, in some indirect way, to be worse off.

   Posted by Simon on 09/10/2009 20:02:54

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
5. A question for Simon. Is this the same 50% of the working population who pay 90% of the tax?

   Posted by PeterM on 09/10/2009 07:59:21

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
6. A rather partial view of a serious problem. I was particulalry unimpressed with Ros Altman: what exactly should govts. have done over the last 20 years? We were not told. Some Gordon Brown bashing as usual in the comments, but consider the following: Withdrawing the pension credit in 1997 affected those in a (funded) private pension scheme. I believe that getting on for 50% of the population (generally poorer people) were not in such a scheme, and were therefore unaffected. The measure was linked to a cut in corporation tax which by itself would have benefitted pension funds. Figures estimating the cost of the measure are likely to be overestimates if they do not allow for this. In any case it could be argued that these pension schemes were over-privileged in the first place: tax concessions were granted both on money paid in and on the income of assets purchased. (Compare with ISA's) Who took your pension? Unless a Robert Maxwell was involved: no one. Shares are inherently risky, and no one can guarantee their return over a long time period. Governments actually don't do too badly in providing (very) basic pensions, but again there are no guarantees: they cannot impose too large a tax burden on the future working population. A discussion of pension policy that ignores these vital points is worth very little. Actually I suspect that govts. have indeed contributed to the pension crisis, but chiefly through health expenditure, which raises life expectancy!

   Posted by Simon on 07/10/2009 19:25:17

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
7. A very good programme which explained the situation well. However, I don't think it explained who "took" my pension. So far as I understand, the pension companies are major shareholders and provide a significant volume of equity trading. The costs of these trades is the banks commission. This funds banks profits and therefore bankers bonuses. I would love to have time to reconcile the value of banker's bonuses with the hole in the pension funds. Perhaps your researchers do have the time to work out where some of it has gone !! Kind regards. Robert Field

   Posted by Robert Field on 07/10/2009 13:05:21

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
8. There was so much wrong about that program. Why can't we have a true eductaional program about pensions instead of sensationalist sob stories. My heart bleeds for those who can no longer go travelling 3 months a year or on a luxury cruise. Why do people expect to be rich when they retire!? There are real problems in pensions and programs like this don't help with the number 1 problem of educating people.

   Posted by Mark on 06/10/2009 21:47:00

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
9. A very worrying program, and a major problem which neither Labour or the Conservatives had the guts to tackle this years ago. Even more worrying is that neither party have committed themselves to correct the injustice meted out to thousands of other people who face the same problem as Alan Marnes, after all these years. For those wishing to get a better grasp of the missing pensions, look at www.pensionstheft.org

   Posted by Pahlan on 06/10/2009 18:04:16

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
10. "Who took your pension" I am a regular watcher of "dispatches" but found this episode dissapointing! It concentrated on sensationalising all the negative points with regards to State and Private pensions. There are many problems in this industry,but the main one being that people are not putting away realistic contributions! By all means point out the inadequacies but please report some possitives. It missed a good opportunity to mention recent 2006 legislation which allows people to make greater impute of up to 100% of there salary into their pension! When markets are low buy pension units! The unfortunate outcome of this programe is that viewers will decide not to make adequate contributions, thus placing a greater burden on State Pension provision. A more balanced view next time!

    Posted by Roddy Surfleet on 06/10/2009 17:39:33

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
11. A disappointing program, no explanation of how peoples' private pensions vanished and why it was not prevented. Little investigation of where supposedly secure funds went. Pensions of public sector, not private sector, fat cats endlessly highlighted, BBC and Channel 4 executives but not ITV or Sky, where was the balance? Not what I have come to expect from Dispatches.

    Posted by Dave Loney on 06/10/2009 14:15:50

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
12. I agree with KENHERTS. Brown contributed to the demise of most of the final salary pension funds in the UK. In 1994 I researched and published a paper entitled `The Development of Prevention and Cure Healthcare Centres` for the betterment of the NHS having been commended for my work designing hospitals. It discussed a range of issues including the effects of the demographic shift and healthcare for the elderly and drug and alcohol abuse. The reduction in pensions and this present economic climate means that people will be relying more on the NHS for treatment instead of being able to pay into a Private Health Scheme. So together with a 14% increase in the UK population, the reduction in pensions has a far more detrimental affect on society and an extra burden on the NHS. It`s about time government departments stopped working in silos and start to realise that their decisions do actually have a knock-on affect in other areas of concern.

    Posted by John from Tunbridge Wells on 06/10/2009 12:03:22

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
13. Always glad to see that the plight of those of us who have been robbed of our final salary pensions through no fault of our own gets publicity even if it has to shown as part of a general pensions problem. It would have been nice to see a greater emphasis on showing who is mainly responsible, one Gordon Brown, who only last week made the ridiculous claim that nobody had lost any of their savings. Remember that he has been in charge of the country's finance for the last 12 years or more.

    Posted by Pat Moloney on 06/10/2009 11:23:05

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
14. Overall a good programme but the regular references to the size of the 'fat cats' pensions was pathetic and an unecessary distraction. The well off will always be with us.....but there there aren't many of them.....so why bother. I'd have liked to have heard more about the circumstances of ordinary working folk.....ie the majority of us.

    Posted by FRANKBAGGIE on 06/10/2009 11:16:00

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
15. You managed to produce a one hour long programme without once mentioning the architect of this pension problem namely Gordon Brown. He started the rot by taxing pension dividends reducing the pension payout by 58% and this had a knock on affect on the markets as pension funds invested millions into UK companies shares. Time you gave us the truth about this very serious problem and laid out the FULL facts not one that skirts the issue.

    Posted by kenherts on 06/10/2009 10:19:55

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
16. Can I just ask why you ruined a very good documentary with the childish 'Pensions Rich List' segments? Yes, heads of major corporations are going to have large pensions. So what? They are going to have huge salaries as well. That is the way capitalism works. I am not a Sun reader and don't need this kind of pathetic baiting. The rest of the documentary was very interesting and of the usual excellent standard I have come to expect from Dispatches.

    Posted by Gary Loftus on 06/10/2009 09:38:31

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
17. Good programme, but it annoys me when certain cliches go unchallenged. You wouldn't think that the average local government pension was well under ?10K. You'd think life expectancy was high for everyone, but that's just the average. Generally poor people die much younger. The poor who die young subsidise pensions for the rich who live long. And it isn't all doom and gloom. Our strike ballot over jobs, pay & pensions at Fujitsu finally got underway today.

    Posted by Ian Allinson on 05/10/2009 22:26:47

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
18. We have a big problem that from 2012, all employers need to be geared up to offer personal accounts and pay 3% into the funds, when State Retirement ages will be rising to 68, but the European Court has just ruled that it is perfectly legal to terminate someone's employment because they are 65. Unless the economy picks up, employers will save money by releasing those of us who are not so well paid at age 65 and save themselves the 3% contribution. This leaves us with a difficult choice- do we use our pension fund to cover the three year gap and/or rely on pension credits. Currently, the rules on pension credits mean that any savings you have (including personal accounts) are assumed to be taken to offset the amount of pension credit you receive - so do you take an initial hit on the purchased annuity (the younger you are, generally the small the annuity you get for each ? in your pension fund) and a secured income, or wait as long as possible and hope your fund is still there when you eventually NEED the money? As the progamme ended - only you can answer this question. There are however, possibly a few people who do not need to worry though ....http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1557414/ministers-pensions-increase... Would Ms Eagle (Minister for Pensions) possibly be one of these lucky people?

    Posted by darkPariah on 05/10/2009 22:22:20

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
19. Thanks C4 for showing how most of us face a life of pensioner misery if we are lucky enough to live into old age.

    Posted by Alan Marnes on 05/10/2009 22:11:15

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
20. What a very disappointing programme - you spent the whole time stating what was pretty obvious and well known - and I was waiting for your so called "experts" to come up with the answers - but no nothing !! Please follow this up with a programme on how to solve the problem - that would be far more helpful.

    Posted by Ewenmbc on 05/10/2009 22:06:26

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
21. This has been the elephant in the room for a long time. However, the intrinsic failure of our system of government is that any individual politician or government can pretty much rest assured that any grenade with a 20-year+ fuse will not affect them, especially when they have a generous pension guaranteed for their 60-5th birthday. This problem overlaps with the issues of: rising world population, increasing human longevity, declining education standards in the UK, increasing global competition for jobs, savings and pension damage by the current economic collapse. What people think they have in their pensions, they probably do not, and anyway, who wants to work until they are 75? I would rather be dead!

    Posted by Moray on 05/10/2009 22:02:36

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
22. How is it possible, even for Channel 4, to screen a program called "Who Took Your Pension?" and to fail to mention that Gordon Brown has taken ?5,000,000,000 of it each and every year since 1997? In fact, the program didn't address who took our pensions at all. It merely said that there was a problem (which we all knew) and that the rich and powerful had protected themselves (as we know they always do). So the program was utterly useless.

    Posted by Eric on 05/10/2009 21:57:59

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
23. It is galling to say the least that my personal pensions, have been butchered by the outright greed and inadequacies of the financial sector. This has been further exacerbated by the political ambition and short term thinking of successive governments. Civil Servants particularly at a senior level have received salary increases that in many cases have matched the private sector with of course gold plated pensions reflecting this. Much is paid for by the majority of us with modest incomes, who in real terms, have borne the lions share of the tax burden., These so called public servants have for example, managed the resourcing of our military so badly, that every aspect of operations has been neglected and yet their failings will be rewarded. I trust no major instition these days whether it be financial or government. For decades pensions have been financed from current tax revenues. There is has been no forward or joined up thinking, about pension provision, especially for those who have worked so hard to support themselves in retirement.

    Posted by C James on 05/10/2009 21:34:42

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
24. A good start would be for MPs to cancel, as of now, all further rights to their own gold-plated pension schemes. Let them buy their own in the marketplace like the rest of us have to. Then start on the rest of the civil service... one nation eh?

    Posted by BillyB on 05/10/2009 21:27:22

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
25. What has not been said is that until comaratively recently, pension funds such as mine 9Teachers Pension) were net contributors to the government - ie the receipts were greater than the payments. No one complained then. My speciality is IT. I have chosen to teach all my life because it is a worthwhile job. I did not take higher paid employment, but rather a job with a good deal of security, lower salary, and a final pension scheme. i do not see why I should have this cut off in the final few years of my career.

    Posted by Peter on 05/10/2009 21:26:58

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
26. When are our government going to face up to this and get a grip on the ludicrous public sector liabilities??? Cut the public sector pensions NOW. I don't want to hear the nonsense about them mainly being low paid. The low paid of the private sector are PAYING to top up the pensions of the public sector through tax and many of them will get no pension. When are we going to get a government with the brains and balls to face up to this? A disgusted private sector worker who will be getting his children to leave the UK whilst they can and before the UK implodes.

    Posted by Scott on 05/10/2009 21:23:35

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
27. I have just watched 'Dispatches' regarding pensions. Very interesting programme. When dicussing pensions I always get wound up because we see someone struggling to make ends meet but we NEVER look at the life they have led to reach that point. Have they chosen to spend, spend, spend all their lives or have they put a little aside for the future? How many of our youngsters look at the people who have tried to save and think - no chance, so don't bother to think about it. Those who are thinking about it will, yet again, be penalised in the future because of those who havn't and we feel sorry for them and provide them with benefits. Why do all the pension ideas have an 'opt out' clause? Make EVERYONE contribute, please...

    Posted by Gerry Bacon on 05/10/2009 21:17:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
28. The name of the programme was "Who took your pension" but the programme never answered the question. No mention of firms taking contribution holidays in the eighties and nineties or Mr Brown's tax grab on pension funds in the nineties. Why weren't these areas covered?

    Posted by Soontobepensioner on 05/10/2009 21:15:29

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
29. Very intersting program from the dispatches team. One thing puzzled me, in that it was stated that foreign countries, I believe that meant Europe, there pensions were greater than ours. So, how are they copping with financing there pension schemes.

    Posted by Jim on 05/10/2009 21:12:33

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
30. I was attracted by the title but although the program highlights/flags up the problems with future pension funding problems it is surely a misnomer. After all, it did not answer the question posed in the title. It showed us the example of a man who worked for 40 years and is now facing a future with no pension. The national press has exposed this kind of scandalous theft over recent years and I was expecting your program to answer the question posed in the title; instead it didn't address the answer at all. I felt cheated by the misleading program title.

    Posted by B. O'Neill on 05/10/2009 21:11:47

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
31. "Who stole your pension?" You did not answer your own question !. You focused on high pensioned individuals but they, whilst exasperating, are not the problem. One individual is not the cause of the pension crisis but for example the millions of public sector workers on fixed salary related pensions. No mention (how surprising) that Brown took away tax relief on private pension dividends thereby seriously weakening private pension schemes when the share prices tumbled andescalating the closure of company final salary schemes.

    Posted by Jeff Eatough on 05/10/2009 21:09:20

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
32. I must say that some of the comments made shocked me, being a public sector employee it shocked me to here that my pension will be/is funded by the tax payer, yet i pay as do many others in my field around 11% which is more than the mp's. the police are ok there pension is protected as they are not allowed to strike. but our sector has already seen changes in the pension we pay. i think the problem is with the fat cats! there needs to be a change some where. good people are working all there lives just to fill there pockets. the banks should stop rewarding and paying large bonus's i don't get a bonus for doing my job well! they should do it well because thats what they are payed to do!

    Posted by sam on 05/10/2009 21:09:02

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
33. A very interesting and relevant programme. However one of the first acts of Gordon Brown as Chancellor was to place a tax of 20% on pension funds profits, which in turn had a deleterious effect on the money available to pay out in pensions. Of this your programme made no mention. Why not?

    Posted by georgie on 05/10/2009 21:08:04

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
34. I fail to see why you need to tell us repeatedly that rich people do better than poor ones as regards to pensions. I mean am I supposed to be shocked? Your lack of solutions or analysis of what other countries do or how they pay for better state pensions than GB is a sad ommission, makes it more depressing. Maybe that was the point! It occurs to me that the government could or perhaps should consider emphasizing cigarrettes and anything else guaranteed to shorten your lifespan as a serious policy issue, crazy but people dying younger would be helpful and who needs an additional 20 odd years of total poverty to look forward to.

    Posted by Paul Jackson on 05/10/2009 21:07:59

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
35. It nis not true that public sector pensions are non contributory. The contibutions I paid towards my pension was as much as 9% of my salary. I heard someone say she had to contribute 5% of her salary to her company's final salary scheme. I also am a taxpayer, so as well as my contributions I contributed through my taxes; and now after retiring I am still paying taxes on pension and savings. I also worked past the official retirement age.

    Posted by Bernice Burton on 05/10/2009 21:07:33

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
36. There were lots of comments from the pensions experts regarding the problems facing the pension system and how Governments have failed to tackle the issue. Why did the programme makers not seek their opinions on what action needs to be taken? I kept waiting for this section which never came.

    Posted by john sheffield on 05/10/2009 21:06:55

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
37. One thing that wasn't mentioned was the amount of 'tax' the government has 'taken' from the pensions. I understand that it is/was running at something like 5 billion a year - is this correct. It seems to me the pensions were ok until the government decided to drain them. Can anyone say how much has been taken out by the government over the years. Even old Robert Maxwell didn't manage to do this much damage!

    Posted by Ann Atkinson on 05/10/2009 21:04:15

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
38. programe said some logal govt schemes are not fully funded do the individual funds have to tell me how underfunded they are?

    Posted by kingdm on 05/10/2009 21:03:47

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
39. the experts are great! having noticed that Bolt can do the hundred metres in under ten seconds they then try to calculate how long it would take him to run a hundred miles .. pensions are a social not a financial product: this is how the likes of Goodwin can get their ridiculous pensions because we (society) still cannot wrap our minds around denying it - any more than in the past we could deal with inequities that have since been remedied - things take time and necessity is etc etc

    Posted by ddalton on 05/10/2009 21:03:35

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
40. Thank you dispatches , what you ve spelt out clearly between the lines is that its the end of the free market . So lets just get on with it , kick em out surcharge them all for the damage done . That ll get rid of their fancy pension options . Socialise the banks . Descant pensions across the board .No longer an economy dictated by profit and the vageries of credit and competition . You havent actually said it as such , but thats the logic of your story tonight.....that or sheer hell on earth.

    Posted by johnnyb on 05/10/2009 20:57:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
41. I am watching Dispatches in disbelief, not at the dire state of pensions, but at the people featured, who seem to think that travelling all over the world upon their retirement is the main concern here. I agree that there is an expectation of wealth that has been built up which is likely not to come to fruition, and I agree that this is unfair, but what is important here is surely that everyone has enough to live on in retirement, rather than enough to subsidise exotic travel! As an aside, none of the people featured seem to have considered that, in the relatively near future, it will become less and less socially acceptable to take international flights for holidays. Perhaps this is the same ego centric mentality that thinks that it would be reasonable for the younger generations to be supporting the people drawing final salary pensions when those final salary pensions will be long since shut to the younger generations.

    Posted by Amy Davies on 05/10/2009 20:36:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
42. The pensions crisis is indeed a serious issue. But the case is not helped by a 40-something declaring she is upset because she might not be able to travel the world in 20 years time. I am a babyboomer and do not have a gold-plated company pension to look forward to, but maybe fortunately I have found my energy levels and physical abilities declined to the point where I NO LONGER WISH TO TRAVEL!!! Come to that since being widowed I seldom eat out at the local eateries.....

    Posted by amy johnson on 05/10/2009 20:22:43

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
43. The Issue IS NOT that FP's are closing it is the Terms enfored by blue chip companies on their employees that basically force those able to retire to make themselves redundant or stay and have worse T&Cs which then penalises your pension heavilly, leaving you with no option but leave employment and with no Unemployment benefits!. The labour Gov't yet again fails to understand and recognise what is going on, the public mood and issues. They implement Car schemes to help save jobs because of their own economic mis-management. Yet nothing is done of any substance on Pensions regulatory governence or reforms which protects peoples pension (where there is no real cost to a company beyond impacting their own profit and greed) is beyond Gov'ts intellect. Unless you work for the Govt, of course, with a public sector pension for life :o)

    Posted by Bilbo Baggins on 05/10/2009 13:21:03

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment