It is noted that for a hundred years pensions have been struggling to remain at 25% of the national average earnings, the Trade Unionist who said we are running fast to stay still got that one correct, as socialists we say reforming the capitalist system can only ensure its continuation and workers must bin this system for one based on the common ownership of the means of production, a system where all the necessities are produced in the quantities that provide for everyone. Where pensions are a thing of the past.
The article below, gives an excellent account of the struggle to remain just where we are.
“The first pension payments were for those aged 70 and over and were between one and five shillings a week with nine out of 10 of the 650,000 recipients getting the full amount . Five shillings (25p) was then the equivalent of 25% of national average earnings.Comparing pensions and earnings has long been a way of assessing how pensioners are doing in comparison to the working population and the long-term trend has not been in the pensioners' favour. In fact, it wasn't until the 1970s that the basic state pension again rose to around 25% of average earnings, briefly topping that level - at 26% - in 1979. Before 1974 the state pension was not increased at specific times or by an amount based on any kind of formula and since 1979 annual increases have been based only on inflation. Restoring the link with earnings is one of the key pension reforms demanded by trade unions, and a regular element of the pensions' resolutions passed at the TUC each year. Speaking at a lobby of parliament organised by campaigning group the National Pensioners Convention (NPC), TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said that although the state pension remains a key achievement, "its value has melted away since the link with earnings was ended by the last Conservative government". If the link to earnings had been retained then a single pensioner entitled to the full basic state pension would now be getting £143.15 a week instead of the actual rate of £95.25.”
How has this past 100 year pension struggle developed?
“Trade union persistence on this issue finally paid off in 2006 when the government decided that it would restore the link to earnings increases but only from 2012. The current basic rate is the equivalent of just 15% of average earnings and the restoration of the earnings link from 2012 will effectively set this as the long-term level unless a future government makes additional increases.
The low level of the basic state pension has been acknowledged for many years and various governments have tried to address this. At the end of the 1950s the Conservatives came up with the idea of a graduated retirement benefit that was the first attempt at supplementing the basic pension. The Labour government of 1974-79 decided that this was inadequate and wound the scheme up and replaced it with the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS). The idea was that this would provide a pension worth roughly 25% of "band" earnings - that is earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits for National Insurance contributions - on top of the basic pension, mainly for workers who were not covered by occupational pension schemes.
Employees could start building up entitlement from 1978 but before anyone could retire on the full benefits of the scheme the Conservatives began to make cuts with a major reform introduced in 1986 followed by further changes in 1995. According to calculations made by the Pension Policy institute, the combined impact of these reforms is that a man on average earnings retiring today with a full SERPS contribution record gets a pension 17.5% lower than he would have done if the reforms had not been implemented.”
Disappearing contributions
“Trade union persistence on this issue finally paid off in 2006 when the government decided that it would restore the link to earnings increases but only from 2012. The current basic rate is the equivalent of just 15% of average earnings and the restoration of the earnings link from 2012 will effectively set this as the long-term level unless a future government makes additional increases.
The low level of the basic state pension has been acknowledged for many years and various governments have tried to address this. At the end of the 1950s the Conservatives came up with the idea of a graduated retirement benefit that was the first attempt at supplementing the basic pension. The Labour government of 1974-79 decided that this was inadequate and wound the scheme up and replaced it with the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS). The idea was that this would provide a pension worth roughly 25% of "band" earnings - that is earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits for National Insurance contributions - on top of the basic pension, mainly for workers who were not covered by occupational pension schemes.
Employees could start building up entitlement from 1978 but before anyone could retire on the full benefits of the scheme the Conservatives began to make cuts with a major reform introduced in 1986 followed by further changes in 1995. According to calculations made by the Pension Policy institute, the combined impact of these reforms is that a man on average earnings retiring today with a full SERPS contribution record gets a pension 17.5% lower than he would have done if the reforms had not been implemented.”
Disappearing contributions
At the same time as cutting back on SERPS, the Conservative government introduced a new system of personal pensions with the clear intention to increase the amount of pension benefits provided by the individual rather than by the state. The personal pensions system proved an expensive fiasco. It was very expensive for the many individuals who contributed to pension plans only to find that a lot of their contributions disappeared into fees and charges or that the lump sum available at retirement was much lower than expected because of poor investment returns. Several major pension companies were also found guilty of mis-selling pensions.
Trade unions wanted to see more compulsion on employers to contribute to pensions, but the Labour government elected in 1997 steered away from this proposal and instead launched a new system of persona! pensions, called stakeholder pensions. The intention was that stakeholder pensions would tackle some of the major personal pension system - high fees and charges. Employers were required to make stakeholder pensions available to employees but there was no requirement for employers to contribute.
Stakeholder pensions failed to take off and the government was left still facing a major pensions challenge. This consisted of an inadequate basic state pension, a complicated earnings-related pension that failed to provide additional benefits for many low-paid workers and a system of private pensions that many workers were reluctant to invest in. This combination of factors was made worse by massive cutbacks in occupational pension schemes. A period of falling stock markets undermined the financial position of many of the main occupational pension funds in the private sector. From the mid-1990s a growing number of employers were closing these final-salary schemes to new employees and replacing them with defined contribution schemes whose payouts were dependent on fluctuating stock market returns.
There are several elements in the government's current pensions strategy that try to address these problems. It has changed the entitlement rules for the basic state pension and replaced SERPS with a new Second State Pension. In both cases it is now much easier for parents and carers with significant breaks in employment to build up pension entitlement and with the reduction in qualifying years more people will be entitled to the full rate. The Second State Pension is gradually being transformed into a simple, flat-rate payment and so will be much easier for people to understand than SERPS. Although the new pension will be less generous for those on above average earnings, it will provide more generous benefits for those below average earnings.
The third element of the strategy is to introduce new pensions accounts, a system that will require employer contributions. From 2012, employees will be automatically enrolled into a personal account with a 4% contribution made by them and 3% from the employer.
Employer obligations
The issue of employer responsibility was made clearly at last year's TUC Congress by Adrian Askew, general secretary of the Connect communication workers' union, in the debate on pensions. "While increases to the state pension are most welcome, that alone will not provide a reasonable standard of living in retirement," he said. "The state pension should in reality be a decent safety net but employers/businesses need to recognise their responsibility and not simply argue that increases to the minimum provisions provided by the state are adequate and somehow absolve them as employers of their obligations."
While it is too early to say whether the new system will begin to fill one of the many gaps in the UK pension system, what is clear is that for most trade unions, the basic state pension is the core of the system and needs to be increased substantially as part of a strategy to reduce poverty among pensioners. The means-testing system of pensions credits, in place since 2003, has helped some pensioners but £1.3 billion a year goes unclaimed - 1.8 million pensioners are eligible for the top up but don't receive it.
Speaking at the lobby of parliament last October, NPC general secretary Joe Harris said: "After 100 years of the state pension it's a national disgrace that at least 2.5 million older people are still living below the official poverty line, and millions more are struggling to meet the rising costs of living." The NPC, supported by the TUC, wants to see the basic pension paid to all existing pensioners on a universal basis with the single pension raised to £151 a week.
Trade unions wanted to see more compulsion on employers to contribute to pensions, but the Labour government elected in 1997 steered away from this proposal and instead launched a new system of persona! pensions, called stakeholder pensions. The intention was that stakeholder pensions would tackle some of the major personal pension system - high fees and charges. Employers were required to make stakeholder pensions available to employees but there was no requirement for employers to contribute.
Stakeholder pensions failed to take off and the government was left still facing a major pensions challenge. This consisted of an inadequate basic state pension, a complicated earnings-related pension that failed to provide additional benefits for many low-paid workers and a system of private pensions that many workers were reluctant to invest in. This combination of factors was made worse by massive cutbacks in occupational pension schemes. A period of falling stock markets undermined the financial position of many of the main occupational pension funds in the private sector. From the mid-1990s a growing number of employers were closing these final-salary schemes to new employees and replacing them with defined contribution schemes whose payouts were dependent on fluctuating stock market returns.
There are several elements in the government's current pensions strategy that try to address these problems. It has changed the entitlement rules for the basic state pension and replaced SERPS with a new Second State Pension. In both cases it is now much easier for parents and carers with significant breaks in employment to build up pension entitlement and with the reduction in qualifying years more people will be entitled to the full rate. The Second State Pension is gradually being transformed into a simple, flat-rate payment and so will be much easier for people to understand than SERPS. Although the new pension will be less generous for those on above average earnings, it will provide more generous benefits for those below average earnings.
The third element of the strategy is to introduce new pensions accounts, a system that will require employer contributions. From 2012, employees will be automatically enrolled into a personal account with a 4% contribution made by them and 3% from the employer.
Employer obligations
The issue of employer responsibility was made clearly at last year's TUC Congress by Adrian Askew, general secretary of the Connect communication workers' union, in the debate on pensions. "While increases to the state pension are most welcome, that alone will not provide a reasonable standard of living in retirement," he said. "The state pension should in reality be a decent safety net but employers/businesses need to recognise their responsibility and not simply argue that increases to the minimum provisions provided by the state are adequate and somehow absolve them as employers of their obligations."
While it is too early to say whether the new system will begin to fill one of the many gaps in the UK pension system, what is clear is that for most trade unions, the basic state pension is the core of the system and needs to be increased substantially as part of a strategy to reduce poverty among pensioners. The means-testing system of pensions credits, in place since 2003, has helped some pensioners but £1.3 billion a year goes unclaimed - 1.8 million pensioners are eligible for the top up but don't receive it.
Speaking at the lobby of parliament last October, NPC general secretary Joe Harris said: "After 100 years of the state pension it's a national disgrace that at least 2.5 million older people are still living below the official poverty line, and millions more are struggling to meet the rising costs of living." The NPC, supported by the TUC, wants to see the basic pension paid to all existing pensioners on a universal basis with the single pension raised to £151 a week.
No comments:
Post a Comment