Would you put your pension on a politician's promise?

Would you put your pension on a politician's promise?
Britain’s state pensions are Ponzi schemes on a scale to make the fraudster Bernard Madoff blush.

By Ian Cowie
Published: 12:17PM BST 09 Oct 2009

Comments 1 | Comment on this article

"Told you so. Sorry to start so smugly, but there really is no other way to put it. This column has often warned about the risks of savers putting their faith in politicians’ promises. Now this week’s Pensions White Paper demonstrates just how dangerous that can be in cash terms.”

That’s what I said in this space on May 27 2006, the last time millions of people’s retirement plans took a knock when politicians moved the goalposts. Back then, it was the announcement that Labour planned to scrap the earnings-related benefits of the State Second Pension, just four years after S2P had replaced the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (Serps). This week it was the Conservative proposal to make 5.4m people work longer before they can claim state pensions of any description.


Related Articles
Raising the state pension age is not the answer
Women will not face sudden rise in pension age under Tory plans
Tories soften position on retirement
Tory pension plan: Q&A
Tory plan is not the answer, says expert
Millions to work a year longer under Tories So this would be a good moment to set out some sad but important facts. Britain’s state pensions are Ponzi schemes on a scale that would make the fraudster Bernard Madoff blush. This week’s National Insurance Contributions (NICs), deducted from workers’ salaries, are used to pay next week’s state pensions. That kind of accounting is called fraud in the private sector – as Mr Madoff can attest – and no insurance company would be allowed to carry on in this way.

The reason is that all Ponzi schemes collapse, sooner or later, when the inflow of money from new mugs proves insufficient to honour promises issued earlier and too many people ask to be paid. That is what is happening now with Britain’s state pensions.

Nobody should be surprised. As regular readers will know, this is the point in the article where I like to quote Nye Bevan – a founder of the welfare state – who disclosed more than 50 years ago: “The great secret about the National Insurance fund is that there ain’t no fund.”

To be fair to politicians of all parties, the chart on this page shows why state pension ages must rise – even if the scheme had been properly funded. Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) demonstrate that men and women are living for more than a decade longer than they did when the current retirement ages came into effect with the National Insurance Act 1946.

Looking even further back, you can see that average life expectancy has nearly doubled since Edward VII was born and the ONS stats series started in 1841. Only in the wacky world of life assurance and pensions could this remarkable improvement be regarded as a problem.

From a historical perspective, this week’s Tory proposal could even be seen as “going back to the future” because, when the Basic State Pension was introduced in 1908, the retirement age was set at 70.

Here and now, I would suggest that anybody aged under 30 today would be rash to expect to receive any state pension before they reach 70 years of age. Certainly, the proposed increase to 66 will not be the last time this carrot is shifted a little further away from the donkey’s nose.

Nor do we have to look too far into the future to see this happening. For example, from next April the NICs deducted from our salaries will cease to buy increased S2P benefits, as flagged up in this space three years ago. Thank heavens about 600,000 people contracted out of Serps and S2P to have their NICs paid into private pensions, ignoring all the actuaries’ warnings since then that we should opt back into the state scheme.

Any of us aged over 50 now can take a quarter of these contracted out pensions as tax-free cash any time we please – but it is important to beware that this threshold will be raised to 55 next April.

When I opted out of Serps more than 20 years ago, I did so on the basis that I would rather build up a pot of private property than rely on an ill-defined share of an unfunded scheme. That remains as true now as it was then.

Put another way, which would you rather have: a tax-free lump sum today or a politician’s promise tomorrow?

Pensions are not the only way
More than 2m people are thought to be older than 50 now but younger than 55 next April. We face a ticklish question that affects all our pension savings, whether they are in private sector plans, Serps or S2P. If we fail to draw tax-free cash before April 6, 2010, these funds will be locked up until we reach 55 years age – always assuming the politicians don’t move the goalposts again.

That postponement could prove very awkward if, for example, you lost your job in the meantime. And, let’s face it, there can’t be many people who are absolutely certain what they will be doing three or four years hence. So it is tantalising to know that a substantial sum of tax-free cash is available now, when you might not need it, but won’t be available in future, when you might.

The good news is that this week’s increase in individual savings account (Isa) allowances for people aged over 50 has the unintended consequence of helping us to avoid this potential cash flow crisis. The maximum was raised on October 6 to £10,200 per tax year, per person – strictly speaking, anyone who will be aged over 50 in April next year.

So a married couple who are both the right age and have not used their current Isa allowance could place up to £40,800 in the Isa tax shelter between now and April 6 2010, when the next fiscal year starts.

This provides some valuable wriggle room for people who might want to draw benefits from their pension savings while they still can, even if they have no immediate need of the cash. The improved Isa limits mean they can continue to keep the money invested in real assets – such as shares, bonds and unit or investment trusts – in the hope of preserving its purchasing power for when they actually need it.

Better still, unlike pensions, there is no need to pay tax on income received from Isas; nor any need to declare Isas in your tax returns. It also goes to show that pensions are not the only way to provide for retirement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/iancowie/6274049/Would-you-put-your-pension-on-a-politicians-promise.html