John’s Blog No. 140 – Pensions –Pensioners 3

Pension systems in general are not fair or reasonable or give good value for money, unless of course you are one of the lucky ones who have never paid in. The State goes to a lot of trouble and expense to ensure we do not get ripped off by shops, Banks, energy suppliers etc. but does not bother with pensions.

Yet it is the greatest rip off ever with the State as the biggest offender, where else can you pay out for over 40 years without any guarantee of getting anything in return and when you do it is less than you paid in. the amount is dependent on what your children or grandchildren can afford to pay in contributions or taxes.

The money you thought you were saving has already been spent, without even time to touch the ground, it has not been prudently put away to accumulate and grow into a good pension fund for your benefit, but has been lost in the system, grabbed by a greedy Exchequer for their own purposes.

Of course, it is supposed to be put into a protected fund, but all Government Departments only work year to year and are therefore are unable to even envisage savings, yet alone manage them.

Public Sector pensions are even worse, reputedly gold plated, they are nothing of the sort to the majority average member in the NHS, teaching, police or fire, who pay large extra contributions with poor return. Of course the elite part who pay little or no contributions are well off and subsidised by the other members, whose contributions rise to meet the unfair imposition.

Company and other private schemes are run well and give a good return, but their income is taxed by the State and they are being forced by stringent liability demands out of business or into defined contribution schemes. These only have the contributions defined but not the final outcome and lose money in real terms, the pension forecast declines rapidly as you approach retirement, with original projections meaningless.

Unfortunately, retirement when it comes cannot be delayed, you can’t sit on your pension Fund and wait for markets to recover, in fact annuity values can change dramatically within the time taken to have funds transferred and you can guarantee your existing provider will give you the worst deal.

Annuities are out-dated and not fit for purpose, any system that converts pension savings into a final guaranteed income has got to be stable and deliver the same return over a fixed period of time, otherwise they are pointless.  The basic investment in Gilts were supposed to have done this.

The money is there, good market or other investments are there, so what is the problem. The main one is how long will the member live and need to draw that pension? How much can you afford to pay out without the Fund dying before the member?

This is a straight forward calculation, comparing payment levels, population decline, possible investment returns in actual cost terms to find the Fund v payment solution in final real terms. In spite of pensioners living longer, a 4% income would allow a 6% to 8%payment in real terms, some twice existing levels.

Many Group schemes keep Fund continuity through work and retirement, which allows funds to work more effectively whilst minimising risk, giving greater returns due to the higher income achieved, with greater continuity of investment. Income can meet over two thirds of pension costs.

Therefore some form of defined benefit scheme, where minimum outcomes are guaranteed is essential to plan any form of reasonable retirement, to decide how much to save and for how long to get the final income you need and deserve. It is your money and should be made to work as hard as you do to earn it.

We need to return to the sane pension world, where contributions and Fund are allocated to you alone, working for your benefit, so that you retire with a pension Fund adequate to meet your retirement and elderly care needs, with firmer guarantees on what it will achieve over your working life.

John’s Blog No. 139 – Pensions –Pensioners 2

The question arises of whose money is it, it apparently no longer belongs to you; NI contributions are treated by the State as tax income; there is already a move in hand to do this, effectively to cancel the National Insurance Act. The single tier pension at or below welfare level is the first step towards this, All are equal, regardless.

Of course a basic rate of tax at 43% would be extremely popular! I don’t think, particularly with no firm return of pensions, unemployment benefit, job creation, etc, Why bother to work? The only ray of hope is the forthcoming general election, it would make a good platform for defeat.

There is a common attitude with many pension providers and administrators, who treat contributions as their money to be played with on the markets, but pass on the losses to members, which is the basis of defined contribution schemes. Annuities are even worse, are subject to daily market fluctuations, making it a gamble when you retire.

They were supposed to be tied to a stable Gilt and Bond base, with the State guaranteeing the outcome, but were then thrown into the market casino and no longer give good value for money or reflect the diligent years of saving. They are basically out dated and need replacing by a group scheme alive and active through work and retirement.

The basic problem is that pensions are no longer your personal entitlement, earned from many years of prudent saving, but a largesse to be dispensed unwillingly and begrudgingly, as from a charitable fund. No care is taken with your money, in fact it is no longer yours, but belongs to a faceless group or the Exchequer.

If you have the audacity to ask for a statement, you need to check it like Bank or Credit cards as mistakes are often made, the rules are changed without consultation or agreement and forward estimates decrease as retirement approaches, too late to correct.

The State is the worst offender, both in State and Public Sector pensions, you have no rights and should accept without question the “benefits” the State provides. The main aim is to reduce the amount paid out to prop up a failing system, which successive Governments have mismanaged and abused.

Careful plans, made over 40 years,  to retire at a given date with an adequate amount to enjoy the active years of retirement are thrown into confusion; the date is delayed by two years and the amount reduced sometimes halved. Pensions are an area where choice no longer exists, you are urged to choose doctor, hospital, schools etc. but not retirement; fairness has also gone out of the window, when you are better off on welfare.

Let us face it at 65, or is it 67, you are a liability; the system has squeezed out all the juice and wants to discard the shrivelled remains. Yet you are a force to be reckoned with and need to voice your displeasure, so they sit up and take note and improve the system.

Pensioners are now one sixth of Population and are the largest proportion who bother to go out and vote in an election, with the low turnout numbers that occur today, they are the majority. In spite of the low pensions, they are still a major spending power and with time on their hands they are an influence in the local community.

So sit up and take note and show a little respect to the old fogeys, who are not yet over the hills. In addition all in work, see their future in the pensioners and it is in their interest to see they get a good deal. In any case they earn their meagre State pension, paying substantial contributions.

A person in work, on the average wage of £500 pw, with their Employer pay 20% of that wage as NI, with 80% of the total income collected paying the State basic and second pensions. If you put that 16% into a good funded scheme you would expect to receive a pension of half that wage, not the measley fifth (20%) the State pays out.

The single tier pension announced and accepted by the experts as a great step forward, replaces all other State pension provision including the second pension and SERPs. In exchange you will get a large increase in your basic pension, bringing you up to the welfare Pension Credit level, without of course all the side benefits.

You know it makes sense, bringing all up to the democratic Socialist ideal of equality for all, regardless of whether you contribute or not; we all starve together and work hard to ensure it.

John’s Blog No. 138 – Pensions –Pensioners

Pensioners are treated as third rate citizens in the United Kingdom, which no longer appears united to them. They are a welfare liability, whose costs and care we can no longer afford, to be kept at near poverty levels, sometimes in conditions no better than the old workhouses.

There is at present a great “holier than thou” uproar about the mistreatment in hospitals, care homes etc., which is not representative of the many who look after the elderly, sick and needy, in hospitals, local councils, charities down to just neighbourly acts.

The real reasons for any poor treatment always come down to money and hence time, there is an obsession with cutting costs, we have mass production time and motion experts, supermarket and financial guru’s all trying to get a quart out of a pint pot.

This is particularly so in the Public Sector, where excellent service is expected for little or no cost; no one sits down and works out what the need is for a good service and costs it properly and then looks at what we can afford and the best allocation of resources.

They know the number of doctors, nurses and social workers required per patient, but then insist on making do with half the number, who they blame when things go wrong. We spend a fortune looking over our shoulder with expensive committees, reviews and enquiries to tell us what common sense should do.

The main blame for the attitude to pensioners must lie with the State and successive Governments, who have reduced what should have been a successful National Insurance contributory pension scheme to rubble, not meeting inflation increases and replacing them with welfare benefits until everything is now benefit.

Yet all their working life they paid their taxes and also substantial NI pension contributions for their retirement future. This money was not put aside to accumulate and grow, but squandered until the system degenerated into the money, as it is deducted,  paying today’s pension, with complete age dependency, now unsustainable.

Now those in work today can no longer afford to support the increasing number retired, even at the poverty levels now prevailing, with desperate measures being taken to prop up the system, making people work longer, means testing for basics, grabbing personal assets with envious eyes on those who have made provision for themselves, with extra pension contributions in personal schemes and creating envy.

Total National Insurance contributions for someone on the average wage of £500 per week amount to 20% of wages, the same as the basic tax rate; 80% of this money is spent on State pensions. If this 16%, some £80 per week were put into a well managed funded pension scheme it could after 40 years of work and saving yield a pension of some £250 to £320 per week, three times the current State basic pension.

The State has thrown away these advantages of prudent money management with the accumulation and growth of funds, it has also lost sight of the fact that contributions are individual personal savings to be respected and nurtured. In fact the current approach would be treated as an illegal act of fraud.

To be continued

John’s Blog No. 137 – Pensions –Energy

Pensioners are more dependent on energy than the majority of Society; they spend longer in the home, some housebound, get less exercise resulting in poor circulation and are more susceptible to cold. They  therefore use more heating and light, have temperatures higher, with a high energy consumption.

Their energy bills are higher and take a greater part of the income, which is often close to the poverty level. The soaring energy bills have therefore hit them the hardest and yet Offgen and the Government seem unable to control what is a vital part of our economy.

Trading results are just being reported for the recent cold winter and it is claimed that they make no money from supplying energy to the consumer and even suggest they are losing money by doing us the favour of doubling our energy bills. Meanwhile their exploration and generation arms make large profits.

This is the real problem with competition, if you are involved in producing the raw material, converting , distributing and finally delivering it to the consumer, you have a monopoly and can decide which is the best place to make your profits

Of course rising world energy prices are a bonus and a good reason to blame; nothing to do with you, while you charge the higher price and increase profits, salary and bonuses. Prices go steadily up, but fail to respond when oil and gas prices drop, a one way street.

The reason given is that contract prices are committed for many years ahead and are therefore slow to respond, all part of the speculative futures markets and when it is time to bring them down they have of course risen again, making it impossible to do anything.

Of course when the contract is with yourself, or an associated Company, you can agree anything you like on price, regardless of the real cost of the product. It costs no more to extract gas and oil than it did several years ago, in fact Technology has made it cheaper.

In spite of rising World demand, supply has kept pace, reserves are high and new sources, e.g shale gas have improved the situation, which is kept artificially high. We still have good North Sea reserves, in spite of squandering them when prices were low, yet although it belongs to us in the UK, we get no price benefits.

Of course high profits are needed to finance investment, yet we have an impending generation crisis due to old stock not being replaced, so where is the investment? The problem is private investment, which has become too private; the moral high ground has been replaced by greed and short term interests.

There is little long term planning or investment, or even common sense, if your business depends on energy generation, then you need to ensure that the capacity is there to ensure a future. The State shares a major part of the blame, they passed it all over, but not ensured the necessary controls and guidance to make it work.

The large shale gas reserves offer us a way out and of siting generation where it is needed, it can and should be exploited in a considerate and safe manner; the modern technology exists to do so but it needs a good PR job.

Green energy is another area, if it was not so expensive, it would be one big joke. The Chinese  generate more CO2 per second than we save by green energy each year, yet we are crippling ourselves trying to do it, both economically and individually.

Climate change is a World problem, we are putting an insulating blanket of CO2 and methane round the globe, which lets energy in but not out, yet alone our efforts are pitifully small and ineffective. Many are misguided, biomass and wood burning just releases stored CO2, which is best left captured.

We need to clean up our act, use less energy in our daily lives and embrace true green technology; the Severn Barrage could generate 6 to 10% of our energy needs, similar hydro-electric schemes could give more, all run without the doom and gloom merchants consequences.

Electricity is the key, Co2 emissions could be more readily controlled at source giving greener generation, a vacuum freight transport network could be cheaply installed, halving diesel use or more; rail electrification would be a priority must and if we forgot our obsession with speed, electric cars could take off.

Green does not have to be expensive but does require a change of attitude and lifestyle, many solutions are useless, how often do you see wind turbines rotating, they just sit there, with steadily reducing utilisation factors, now below 20%, other methods are just as bad and we pay for them in our energy bills.

We need energy but it should serve us and be free of profiteering and used wisely, it is currently becoming unaffordable to all consumers, returning us to the good old days of unheated houses and darkness. We should fully utilise our energy sources and use our ingenuity to make the dirty ones acceptable and clean.

John’s Blog No. 136 – Pensions

It was reported that there are over half a million migrants lost in the UK and that it will take some 40 years to track them down, that is almost one percent of the entire population. Yet life in the UK today is littered with identity debris.
When born I am issued with a unique birth certificate and number, as soon as I start work, I have a National Insurance number used for this and tax purposes, when I marry a marriage certificate and when I die a death certificate and number. Then of course there is passport, driving licence, NHS number, Council Tax, etc. etc..
In this modern technological age with instant communication, I can use Google or any search engine and get thousands of matches within seconds and yet the State seems unable to do these simple tasks to find out who is legally registered in the system.
In the absence of a National Identity card and number (too expensive to implement), then the National Insurance number is the key identity tag, it shows that someone is or has been contributing to the economy as a working member of Society, with a complete record of such contributions.
It is a unique active identity number which can be readily tracked and verified and then cancelled at death, it is regularly up-dated by Employers and the Tax Office and therefore ideal for identity checks, if the basic information was available on a search database.
Applications for work, benefit or any form of identity could be checked out without costly searches to confirm only one individual exists and the latest address, work details and legitimacy to work and live in the UK, what could be simpler and a quick and ready method of tracking individuals, without affecting their rights.
The database exists and could be instantly available for identity checks and a legal requirement for any employment, it could also be used to establish the right to earned benefits above poverty levels and final pension rights. The information is there and should be used, giving a quicker and simpler method of tracking legal citizens.
We seem loath to implement any sort of controls on migrants, legal or otherwise, we cannot deport terrorists or prevent mass entry or visitors who enter the country purely to exploit the welfare system or health service or even for criminal activities. They export money out of the country affecting trade balance and undermining the economy.
We are hidebound by human rights and EU regulations, which we obey meticulously at great legal and other costs, whilst the rest of Europe ignore such limitations, shipping illegals back or better still on to us, regardless. Next year we can expect another wave of new EU members without restriction and who we will support, whilst our own citizens suffer deprivation, homelessness or poverty or if in work doing more for less return.
If you go to the US, Australia or other major country, you need a visa and cannot stay longer than a visitor period; you need a limited time period work permit and often need residency status to get a permanent job and certainly to claim any benefit or health care, even if it is available.
Immigrants play an important part in our work force, but they need to be part of that work force, contributing to Society and if they stay for a longer time need to become British in outlook. We cannot afford welfare migrants; need to be tough about dealing with them and enforcing border controls, even if they are European in origin.

It is all about plain common sense, which appears to be lacking in European bureaucracy and even in our own. I am not a secular, Britain for the British type of person, but they do need to be given priority when scarce resources are concerned in housing, welfare, health and social care.

We appear to be increasingly governed by minority interests, whether it be big business, the anti everything brigade or the goody goody idealists. They should be firmly put in their place with the interests of the Country and its real citizens as the first priority.

John’s Blog No. 135 – NHS

The NHS is in crisis and approaching the point where it can no longer be afforded, so that the aim must be to reform the service to make it viable. It has become a world service with health tourism to the UK very attractive, which we, with our limited resources, cannot meet.

Of course it is only a small part of the cost, but why should visitors or immigrants not take out Health Insurance; we need to when we go abroad and this is mandatory with the US and other countries.

The NHS should return to being a true health service and not an accident and repair service; it should be restricted specifically to UK residents who are ill and who pay all the costs of the service. It is not an indulgence for self inflicted health problems or a charitable organisation free for all.

We all pay motor and home insurance; Business have transport and accident policies; risk pastimes take out insurance as do major events organisers and anyone liable to risk, so why should this Insurance  not meet its full obligations. Of course premiums may go up, but no-claims bonus could restrict this to claimants, but the basis is insurance against accidents.

The self indulgence of smoking, drink, drugs and obesity is another  major cost area, but charges could be related to Mandatory rehabilitation courses, with even a health tax on major suppliers of offending products. There is the question of affordability, but they find the money to by the stuff in the first place.

Normal health care at point of need should not be affected with NHS number or Insurance detail (passport for tourists) as required. Record of treatment will be necessary, but this is being done anyway and billing could be from Central Trust on these records. Private hospitals and business do this as routine.

There would be a need for a set of standard charges, agreed with Insurers for accident claims, but the overall cost should not be too high and is rechargeable. The main change would be one of attitude.

There will be some grey areas and also social ones like childbirth, IVF etc which should be on NHS, but generally the position is clear cut, normal health risks or external causes. Food poisoning is one area, where it is commercial it would be part of compensation, in the home it would be health risk.

There is a lot of money being made on accident claims and it is right that this should include treatment costs. In many ways this could be interpreted as privatisation, but it is only in the areas that are already privatised, of Insurance and compensation.

The main objective should be to give health care to UK residents who pay taxes to finance it, anything outside normal health consideration should be paid for at the event. It is difficult to assess how much this would save, but non-health treatment is currently a major part of NHS costs and should be paid for when provided.

It is only logical and sensible that such a separation should occur for natural health issues and those arising from choice and controllable events; in the majority of cases the insurance exists and therefore should meet its obligations in full.

The boundaries are well defined in general, with very few grey areas and the laws on insurance accepted for all parties and exploited by some; they just need to be applied by the Health service. Most A & E and Ambulance service costs relate to rechargeable events, as do long term hospital treatments, whereas GP’s are primarily concerned with basic health, as are most out-patient care.

It is probable that most accident treatment would revert to the private sector, apart from A & E, once it was charged for on insurance, relieving pressure on the NHS. Why should the State or taxpayer subsidise the Insurance Companies or individuals who behave carelessly or live dangerously.

There is a stark choice, we either see the NHS steadily decline under forced savings to an ineffective service, with the drift towards private care for those who can afford it, or remain the excellent NHS it can be , but limited to true health care, free at point of need.

The basic care would not change, but the funding basis would, to the benefit of all who use the service, whether due to ill health, accident or misfortune.

John’s Blog No. 134 – NHS

Two weeks ago, for only the second time in my life I was treated to the delights of an overnight stay in hospital. It was not by choice obviously but by illness, which overtook me at the convenient time of midnight on a Sunday

I woke with breathing difficulties, which got steadily worse until my wife and I decided to call the out of hours service, found the booklet, the number and no longer available reply, tried 111 and received another number to dial, then was connected.

Of course in a normal emergency one would expect to be asked symptoms and questions to decide urgency, but not at that stage personal details from someone having difficulty talking. On hold while a nurse was contacted and then in good call centre practise, started from scratch again.

It was decided on an ambulance, which arrived fairly quickly and then the medical excellence started; efficiently working through their check list of tests, they then decided on hospital and took me out to the ambulance made me comfortable and carried out more tests, ECG etc before deciding to drive off.

One of their concerns, during the 30 mile journey, was of another emergency as they were the only crew on duty, but luckily this did not occur. At emergency a rapid transfer occurred, with no sitting about in the Ambulance as widely reported, again a wide range of thorough tests and then a wait for a doctor to become available.

In a cubicle with curtains open and passing staff checking you were alright, then an emergency next door and the curtains were drawn and isolation began, this is my only crtiticism, the lack of contact and communication and having to call out several times as someone passed, when I needed attention.

Things had improved since my previous visit many years ago, but I was stuck by the complete contrast between medical staff and management. The staff were helpful, cheerful, efficient and overworked, patients were difficult, with the usually lack of communication skills of doctors and consultants, but one had the overall impression of things being haphazard and disorganised.

There was a routine but it clashed at times with doctors rounds, cleaners and maintenance staff came and went at their convenience with the usual long mop pushing the dirt from the doorway round the ward and out again, although there was a full clean the next day.

After a fitful sleep, had just dropped off when the 6.30am medical check started plus a cup of tea, water jugs were collected , taken away and not returned until half an hour later, there was a lot of hassle, breakfast, cleaners orderlies etc., which disturbed the peace.

Visiting hours were restricted, but there was not a lot of activity in the afternoon, so it could have been continuous from lunchtime. There were no night rounds with a complete dependence on the panic button.

One couldn’t help thinking of the good old matron days, experienced when visiting parents and everything seemed quiet and efficient, with little escaping her eagle eye. The care problems now arising result from this lack of this overview and the patient considerate manner exercised on the spot by the matron.

There is no-hands on management occurring, with time taken in balancing budgets, meeting targets, planning and trying to fit two pints into a pint pot, whilst dictating what happens in daily routine, staff levels etc. This is a formula for chaos which is appearing steadily in our NHS.