On Sunday the Observer and others reported:

Ministers are finalising a radical plan to boost investment in UK infrastructure and stimulate the economy, with proposals to pool the vast assets held in British pension funds and use them to back an ambitious programme of road and house building.

Pension and insurance funds are to be encouraged to invest up to £50bn in improving infrastructure, including private and social housing, power stations, super-fast broadband and motorway toll roads.

Now where could Vince Cable – a man who has raed much of my work (and we know this is a LibDem sourced idea) – have got such thinking from?

Could it be from my paper for Finance for the Future entitled ‘Making Pensions Work‘ where I said:

Most importantly we suggest that if those pension funds are to attract tax relief in future they mus tuse a significant part of the £80 billion of contributions they receive each year to invest in new jobs, new technology and new infrastructure for the UK so that the wealth that is needed to grow our economy, to create jobs and to build the real capital base that must be passed to the next generation is built on the back of pension fund investment.

There is a remarkable similarity between  what I wrote on pension investment there (and in the Green New Deal) and in what is being proposed.

Come on Vince, acknowledge your sources.

 

Phillip Inman noted in the Guardian yesterday that it was entirely possible for someone to have saved for twenty years in a personal pension using an actively managed fund and for their investment now only to be worth what they paid into the fund. Indeed, that is not just possible but likely since most managed funds have seriously under-performed the FTSE indices before charges are taken into account.

As I have shown, the subsidy to the pension industry form the tax payer each year is enormous: some £38 billion in a year when last I looked.

And as Philip Inman rightly notes, vast amounts of that have been used to pay management fees, brokers fees and commissions all of which have enriched the financial services industry and none of which have produced a return for pensioners – many of whom will face poverty in old age because their funds have been stolen (I use the word deliberately) by the City.

Why say this again? For three reasons. First, because it says massive pension reform is needed to stop this abuse. That is possible – Dutch pensioners get 50% more pension for their investment than do UK based pensioners because they are not ripped off as we are.

Second, to say that as a result the refusal to consider the pension reforms I recommend – requiring that at least 25% of all new pension contributions made in the UK go into new investment that will result in new investment and job creation in the real economy – is absurd. The result to pensioners is bound to be better than now and yet even those who should be horrified with current pension abuse cannot see that they have a duty to support such change.

Third to make the point that in the 1980s we were told that private pension funds would solve all pension problems, no one would be exploited and the world would be a better place for the private pension revolution. We were lied to by a Tory government. we’re being lied to again by a Tory government now who are saying that NHS reform will result in efficiencies, savings, no charges and a better service. That’s not true. It’s not possible that it can be true. I’ll be exploring why in some depth in the Courageous State. But still the lies are rolled out. And what will actually happen is something like the pension debacle – the rich will get richer and the est of us will get a lousy service leading to desperation at the prospect of real loss of well-being we once enjoyed.

You have been warned.

 

As the FT notes:

Turbulent markets have played havoc with the finances of the UK’s corporate pension schemes. One key official measure has shown that the shortfall in underfunded schemes increased by roughly 50 per cent in July. Another has shown that asset values have fallen by more than £100bn since then.

The Pension Protection Fund’s 7800 Index, which measures the aggregate assets and liabilities of the schemes whose benefits it insures, said that by the end of July the shortfall of schemes in deficit had risen from £77.6bn to £116.7bn.

This is the price people are paying for the government’s decision to walk away from the economy. This government – and other governments – could decide to tackle the recession head on.

They could use the low interest rates they’re enjoying to invest in the things we need: hospitals, schools, vital repairs, coastal defences, sustainable energy, new communications infrastructure on which to build an economy, insulated homes and so, so much more. All would create jobs, here, now. Those jobs would result in tax paid, benefits saved and a massive boost to the private sector. We’d turn the corner. The investment would pay for itself now and in the long term. We could enjoy a double whammy from cheap funding for short and long term gain.

But no. The government has walked away from the economy, its responsibility and the people of this country. It says it won’t interfere.

And the price we pay is £100 billion wiped off pension funds.

So you don’t get the gain. But you suffer the pain.

Remember that when it’s election time. Please.

 

If you want an explanation for why I think it irrational to base our pension hopes on stock market investment then this is it:

Credit: FT, a few minutes ago.

Why on earth does anyone believe such a market can deliver pensions for all? Isn’t that one of the daftest ideas ever put forward?

 

 

I support those on strike today.

I think they are right to protest about the plans the government is making to reduce pension rights. They are arbitrary. Worse, as Nigel Stanley of the TUC pointed out yesterday when writing for the False Economy blog, all they really amount to is a pay cut. His argument is so well put that rather than seek to create my own I reproduce it here, I hope with his permission since (for the sake of disclosure) I make it clear he and I occasionally work together on TUC matters:

“Few people understand how pensions work. The government is relying on this in their attacks on public sector pensions. Ministers claim that they are gold-plated, unreformed and unsustainable. The right-wing press join in by saying that it is unfair that private sector workers’ tax should pay for public sector pensions.

Yet what the government is doing is simple. It is asking public sector workers – already facing a two-year pay freeze, job losses and inflation running higher than it has for more than a decade – to make a further, and even more unfair, contribution to reducing the deficit.

They are doing this by trying to impose an arbitrary extra pension contribution of three per cent of pay on the public sector. This is not a pension reform – it is simply a pay cut.

This comes on top of significant reductions in the value of public sector pensions that blow away the claims that they are unreformed or unsustainable.

Changes negotiated with the previous government reduced the value of public sector pensions by 10 per cent through a range of changes. In particular, under so-called “cap and share”, members agreed to first share – and then fully bear – the costs of any unexpected increase in longevity. This is due to add a billion pounds of extra member contributions.

The National Audit Office closely examined this package and concluded:

“In addition to saving significant sums of money, the changes are projected to stabilise costs in the long-term around their current level as a proportion of GDP.”

So even before anything done by the coalition government or recommended in the Hutton Report, public sector pensions had been both reformed and made sustainable. This is not union assertion, but the hard-headed view of the National Audit Office.

On top of these negotiated changes, the coalition has made a further attack on the value of public service pensions by replacing the Retail Prices Index that has always been used to uprate pensions with the lower Consumer Prices Index. This will further reduce the value of public service pensions by 15 per cent – so we have a cut of 25p in the pound if you combine this with the negotiated changes.

Changing indexation breached the commitments of both coalition parties to protect accrued rights. This is pensions jargon for the pension you have built up in the past. Scheme members made contributions to what they thought was an RPI-linked pension; now they have had its value reduced by 15p in the pound at a stroke.

Yet ministers persist in saying that public sector pensions are unaffordable. The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that the system was in danger of going broke. But this chart in the Hutton Report shows that public service pensions payments will decline as a share of GDP – even before any of the changes proposed in Hutton bite.

Public sector pensions as proportion of GDP

Treasury Minister Justine Greening was completely unable to argue that pensions were unaffordable when this was put to her on the Today programme.

No doubt this is exactly the kind of assertion that the Public Accounts Committee had in mind when it said: “Officials appeared to define affordability on the basis of public perception rather than judgement on the cost in relation to either GDP or total public spending.”

So public sector pensions are sustainable. They have changed.

That leaves the assertion that they are gold-plated. John Hutton was clear that this is untrue:

“The Commission firmly rejected the claim that current public service pensions are ‘gold plated’.”

The figures bear him out. In the big four national schemes the majority of pensions paid are less than £5,600 a year. In the Local Government Scheme half get less than £3,000.

Of course a few very well-paid public servants get considerably more than this. But there are not many of them. And unlike the private sector, wheretop boardroom pensions are solid gold, not just gold-plated, top public servants are in the same scheme as their staff.

Here is the distribution of civil service pensions. As can be seen the vast majority are well-short of even being modest.

Distribution of public sector pensions

What is true is that many in the private sector get a raw deal – the private sector is now a pensions disaster area. Two out of three private sector workers get no employer help in building up a pension. Even the better employers have not only closed salary related pensions, but significantly cut their contributions to the riskier replacements.

But the answer is not to level down by removing pensions altogether from two-thirds of nurses; it is to improve pensions in the private sector. And it is telling that those so keen on attacking this unfairness never talk about the costs of pension tax relief, currently running at £35 billion a year – more than the cost of public sector pensions and heavily skewed towards the rich.

It is no wonder that public sector workers are angry. One union on strike has never taken such action in its history before. Unions know that pensions are long-term arrangements that do change over time. Negotiations are common in private and public sector. But the government’s agenda seems to have little to do with pension reform. This is simply making public sector workers – most of whom are modestly paid – take on an ever greater part of the burden of closing a deficit they did not cause.”

Nigel Stanley is Head of Campaigns and Communications at the TUC.

 

 

According to the FT:

Last year, UK companies raised just £1.3bn in new equity, net of buy-backs and acquisitions.

As my research has shown, we pay about £80 billion a year into UK pensions funds.

And that relief cost more than  £36 bn in 2009-10.

So for £80 billion invested at a cost of £36 billion we got £1.3 billion of net new investment in the UK economy.

What happened to the rest? Well, charges take a big slug. And then the residue was speculated by the City – resulting in more charges arising for the benefit of the City, and not pensioners. You can see this easily enough for yourself: the fact that the FTSE has risen so steadily when there is no obvious reason for it to do so given the mess we’re in is in no small part down to the fact that this wall of pension money arrives month in, month out to keep the City going.

But hardly a penny goes into the UK’s productive eco0nomy that will keep people at work until they reach their new, extended, retirement ages. The money goes into City bonuses in the main.

That’s the scandal of the UK pension industry.

And it’s why I say one quarter of all UK pension contributions should be used to invest in new jobs as a condition of the tax relief given. In the last year that would have released almost £20 billion of new funds to British business. Think what that would do for growth! What can be said with certainty is that it would be a lot more than speculation ever will contribute.

 

I’ve long argued that the wealthiest in this country do far too well out of the tax system. In 2008 in the TUC publication ‘The Missing Billions’ I estimated that 570,000 people earning more than £100,000 a year between them enjoyed tax reliefs which one of them needed costing the state at least £8.4 billion a year (page 32 here).

One of the particularly absurd reliefs that those on higher rates of tax enjoy is pension tax relief at higher rates. Why the pension savings of the best off in the country have to be encouraged by being given a subsidy at least twice, and sometimes 2.5 times that given to the 90% who pay tax at basic rate has always been particularly baffling. The logic of any progressive tax system is that the least well off should benefit most. The logic of this tax relief is that those with greatest capacity to save (the best off) get the highest level of tax relief to do so – with the inevitable consequence that the gap in wealth between richest and poorest increases (even given recently introduced contribution caps) as a result of direct subsidies given to the richest by the state. It’s absurd, for example, that a 50% tax payer can get a tax subsidy of £25,00) a year towards their savings from the state at present – which is more than average pay.

So for once I applaud news from the government - that it is looking to axe higher rate pension relief and save £7bn a year as a result.

It’s a move that makes complete sense in this environment.

And it should be followed by caps on all other forms of savings subsidies and the abolition of all tax relief on gifts to charities at higher rate too – although in the latter case the saving should be directed to the charities.

So for once credit where it is due – if Osborne does this I’ll give him full credit for it.

But, on his current track record expect the idea to be dropped by Tuesday.

Hat tip: Frances Coppola

 

I’m speaking to the National Pensioner’s Convention today at Blackpool.

It’s a long way to go from Norfolk to make a speech, but pensioners matter, so it’s worth it.

And this is what I’ll say, near enough (as I have a habit of not quite keeping to script):

“Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

When I told my sons that I was coming here today the first thing that they wanted to do was come with me. Sun, sea, sand and trams mix pretty well when you’re 10 and eight.

When I told them who I was meeting they weren’t quite so sure about making the trip   but had some careful words of advice. “You’ll fit in well Dad – your hairs the right colour”.

Oh for the over confidence, the arrogance, and the assuredness of youth. I can tell you, I’m very happy to have left it behind.

Maybe though you, like me, look at what’s going on in the world around you and say “What the heck?” Or something like that. I do.

And I do so for good reason. I am perplexed by what our government are doing. Although to say perplexed might understate things.  I admit that I am angry at what our government is doing.  And I’m as angry about the reasons they offer for it.

Lets not beat around the bush:  I know, you know, the government knows, and everyone else knows that we have an economic crisis in this country.

And again, I know, you know, the government knows and everyone else knows that just about everybody except bankers, large company directors, and the very wealthy are having a really tough time as a result.

So lets agree on those facts.

Lets also agree on two other things. The first is that when you’re in a mess it’s best to be honest about it.  The second is that seeking to clear it up is even more important still.  I am of an age, and you are almost all even more of an age, where the wisdom of both of those statements is glaringly obvious.

The trouble is we have a government that is run by what seems to me to be a bunch of boys.  I say boys very particularly: this lot doesn’t seem to want women to join in the game.

And those boys, and David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander in particular, are doing two things.

The first is they’re not telling the truth about what’s going on. There are three issues in particular where they’re telling you a pile of porkies.

First of all, they say that the mess we’re in was all Labour’s fault. Well of course Labour had a hand in it. They were the last government. No one can excuse them from some blame.  But to pretend this was all Labour’s fault when it was actually the fault of our banks is ridiculous. As ridiculous as it is to ignore the fact that throughout the years leading up to the crash the Conservatives demanded less regulation of banks. The crisis would have been much, much worse of they’d been in charge.

Second, they claim that the deficit is so big, and growing so fast, that it will still be there for our grandchildren. Piffle, I say! It’s smaller than it was in percentage terms during most of your lifetimes and during 200 of the last 250 years. Sure it’s an issue, but let’s not talk it out of proportion. That turns molehills into mountains, as we all know. And anyway, it’s an issue Osborne is refusing to address, as I’ll explain.

And third when it comes to talking out of proportion they say that unless we slash government spending then we’ll end up like Greece. Well, we can’t, because Greece hasn’t got it’s own currency, has an economy where most people seem not to pay tax, and had lots of short term debt when most of ours isn’t due for repayment for 14 years.

And yet, I have to say there is a reason why the UK could end up like Greece. The austerity programme in Greece is destroying growth. It’s throwing people out of jobs. It’s resulting in the threat of privatization. It means a cut in pensions and other benefits. And it’s creating mass unemployment amongst the young.

That’s where we’re like Greece. Our austerity programme, a programme we don’t need because our crisis is nothing at all like Greece’s, is doing the same things.

Our growth has collapsed. It was rising under Labour. Now it’s stopped, altogether. We might even be in recession again right now. That’s George Osborne’s fault.

Over half a million civil servants are going to lose their jobs as a direct result of George Osborne’s decision to slash government spending. And as every economist knows, that means at least another half a million people will lose their jobs in the private sector as well.  That’s just like Greece George.

And we have the threat of privatization. Have no mistake about it. What is happening in the NHS is privatization.That is George Osborne’s fault.

And as for young people, one in five of your grandchildren are out of work. That is not their fault. That’s the banker’s fault. That is George Osborne’s fault. It’s his choice that they should have their working lives blighted by no one wanting to use their skills.

But let’s turn to a matter that really concerns you, and which is certainly on my horizon. And that is pensions. You worked, I’ve worked, and millions in this country have worked on the basis of the promise of a fair pension as a result of the contributions that we have made in National Insurance, in tax and in our hard work. George Osborne is taking that promise away.

George Osborne is delaying when pensions are paid. He is reducing the amount by which they increase each year by changing his inflation measure. He’s going to force many to join private pension schemes that are wholly inappropriate for their needs. And George Osborne has the nerve to say that’s our fault. We had too few children and we’re living too long he says.

Let me tell you, that is nonsense.

Let me tell you why it’s nonsense.  A few years ago I began to work on something called the tax gap.  No one had heard of it in this country until I began to talk about it. Now, apparently, it’s the number one priority of HM Revenue & Customs. Well I’m pleased about that, except, as ever, we’re not being told the truth.

The tax gap is the difference between the tax that should be paid in this country and the tax that is actually paid. I say that figure is £120 billion. Now, admittedly, £25 billion of that is tax paid late, so we can only get that back once. But the rest, which is £95 billion is an annual figure. We lose it each and every year. £25 billion is made up of tax avoidance and £70 billion is made up of tax evasion.

Tax avoidance happens when wealthy people and large companies employ accountants, people like me, except I don’t do it, to get their way round the tax law. That’s what you do when you avoid something. You get round it. That’s what they do. You know the names of these companies. They’re called Barclay and Google. They’re called Top Shop and yes some say they’re called Boots the Chemist.

Oh, and they’re also the rich people who put their money offshore, who use tax havens,  and they’re the oligarchs who use this country as if it were a tax haven. All of them helped, inevitably, by bankers, lawyers and accountants. Well-known bankers, lawyers and accountants, I’d add.
You lose your pension because these people work out ways round the law and so don’t pay tax.

And you also lose your pension because whilst even HM Revenue & Customs agree that there might be £35 billion of tax evasion in this country, a figure half of my estimate, and which is so ludicrously low that they’re claiming that this is the most honest country in the world and by a long way: whilst they agree that there is a problem of that scale they are cutting their staff.

In 2005 there were 100,000 people working at HM Revenue & Customs. By 2015 there will be 50,000. And I’ll tell you something very simple, very straightforward, and obvious to anyone.

You don’t catch tax cheats with a computer.

You don’t catch tax cheats by sending a letter and asking them to send a cheque by return.

You trap tax cheats by hard work, by real people, using real skills, to ensure that the tax that is owing, the tax that is paying your pensions, is collected.

And the last government to its shame, and the current government to its discredit, have chosen to cut the number of people at HM Revenue & Customs doing just that.

Well I can forgive Labour, a bit. They put the policy in place when the economy was booming, when tax revenues were rising, when it seemed there was no economic problem, when the studies of the scale of the tax gap had not been made, before I drew attention to it.

But now we know:  we know there is a tax gap. We now know we lose almost two thirds of the deficit Osborne keeps talking about each year to tax avoidance and tax cheats.  Yes that much.

But we know something else much more important.  We know that although the government knows this they have decided to cut the resources available to collect this money. They don’t want this tax. They would rather the tax cheats had this money than the government had it.

They have made a choice.  They have decided to reward dishonesty instead of paying decent pensions.

They want people to take cash in hand instead of providing proper jobs to young people.

They’ll let people cheat instead of providing a proper health service for us all.

They duck and dive like the accountants, lawyers and bankers that so many of them are instead of clearing the deficit.

So, if anyone is to blame for leaving that deficit to future generations it will be George Osborne.

If anyone is to blame for the fact that your pension won’t keep up with the cost of living it is George Osborne.

If your grandchildren’s school is suffering, that George Osborne’s fault.

And when you can’t get the healthcare you need, blame George Osborne.  He decided to do that.

And the next time he says he has to cut, that he has to slash, that he has to destroy people’s lives, and that he has to even take away our healthcare just to keep some bankers happy, well you know now: you know he’s not telling the truth.

George Osborne has a choice. He could employ another 20,000 or more people at HM Revenue & Customs. It would cost £1 billion a year. But I think it would raise at least £20 billion a year in tax, and maybe more. But he’s chosen not to do that.

He says there are no options. He’s wrong. You now know he’s wrong. There is a Plan B. We can have the healthcare, the education, the pensions, the public services, the bus passes, and all that we want if only we had a government committed to collecting the tax that is due to it.  Surely that’s not much to ask, is it?

I don’t think so.

I hope you agree.

Please join with me and say to our government that there is a choice:

You can close the tax gap;

You can deliver the public services we want.

And we expect you to do it.

Thank you.”

 

I suspect that there will be a lot of private sector employees, encouraged by the likes of the Daily Mail, who will complain  about pubic sector strikes, the ‘fat’ pensions of state employees and the fact that they were a little inconvenienced for a day.

The truth is though that as Polly Toynbee points out today many of those who went on strike did so about a real 3% pay cut at a time when their pay was already frozen and inflation is running at 5% or thereabouts.

I suspect most of those complaining from the private sector also have no clue that in  a years time they too are going to be asked to make an additional 3% pension contribution out of their pay. As the government appointed National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) says:

From October 2012 the UK Government will introduce a new pension scheme to the UK as part of a bigger overall pensions reform strategy. Previously known as “personal accounts” or “personal account pensions”, pensions minister Angela Eagle announced the new brand – The National Employment Savings Trust or NEST on 7 January 2010.

The full proposals include reforming the UK State Pension to make it simpler and more generous as well as formally extending people’s working lives. The Government estimates that about seven million people are currently under saving for retirement and a major part of the reform is the Government’s ideas for making it easier for these people to save for retirement.

The proposals will have wide ranging effects across every field of UK business as the onus will be put on employers to help encourage more people to save:

• From October 2012 UK employers will be required to automatically enrol employees into a ‘qualifying workplace pension scheme’. This auto enrolment could be to your existing company pension scheme if it meets certain criteria. If it does not meet the criteria or if you do not operate a company pension scheme then your employees will be enrolled into NEST, a simple, low-cost pension scheme being introduced by the Government.

• Between October 2012 and 2017, depending on the size of company, all UK employers will be required to contribute a minimum of 3% of each employee’s eligible earnings into a pension, assuming the employee does not “opt out”. This is intended to incentivise them to start saving towards their retirement. Employees will need to pay a personal contribution of 4% with a further 1% tax relief being added to make the minimum contribution 8%.

It all sounds voluntary, but using the ‘nudge’ principle anyone not in a pension scheme has to be enrolled in this scheme unless they positively opt out. And employers have no choice but enrol them until they do opt out.

The result is that millions of private sector employees will face a 3% net pay cut.

And their employers will face a 4% additional cost at the same time. Meaning that all hope of private sector pay rises might as well be forgotten in 2013, at least, and may be for some time beyond that.

And what will be the benefit of all this? Well, I’ve been to see NEST and having done so I can report the experience as profoundly depressing. The investment profile it will adopt will be cautious, but it seems likely to also be highly conventional. It will still be buying equities without any consideration as to whether they funds in question actually result in any new real investment in the UK economy. And gilts and others safe havens will be there simply for the benefit of those of near retirement age.

The net effect of this on the economy has to be considered. About one in four of the UK’s employees will face real pay cuts. And their employees will face real increased costs. And all that will simply deliver something like £15bn a year to investment managers, mainly connected to the stick market.

So that money will come out of the productive economy and will instead be diverted into the City for it to speculate.

The rich will benefit.

Those who have been too poor to date will be those who will pay the price in real cuts in their wages, with the cut being invested by the clueless rich in media that have for the last decade produced no net returns so that after charges pension funds of this sort have by and large lost money for those who have supposedly save in them.

The result will be massively recessionary for the UK economy, will create real poverty by enforcing real pay cut for many now and for soem time to come and will inappropriately benefit the City.

Labour may have had its heart in the right place on this one – but times have changed since it was thought up – and surely we now know the stock market cannot deliver pensions? If not we should learn soon, and look again at this reform now because it’s going to be the next self imposed outright disaster for the UK economy.

PS – for those who ask the only right answer is a state earnings related pension scheme.