On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:09:17 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:57:37 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , JNugent
wrote:

And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.

Which is how it ought to work. Then the pension liability is off the
government's books. Equally, final-salary, defined-benefit, and company
pensions should all be illegal.

Why do you believe they should be illegal?

Because pensions are hardly the core business of the likes of BT etc
etc. Why, then, should they be running a pension scheme - for which
they continue to have liability, whether or the company does well or
not. What was the issue with Green and BHS? Pensions. What did Maxwell
raid? The company pension pot. The main thing I seem to keep hearing
about company pension schemes is whether they are solvent or not.

True. But even given that pension schemes are not the core business
of many companies making them illegal is a major change and not in
keeping with financial competition. I believe that the legislation
has been tightened up so that company pensions cannot be raided any
more.

If each person has their own pension pot, into which they contribute,
they can then decide at retirement how and when what to do with it.

True. But with these it is much harder to predict how much pension
you are likely to get.

They can get a pensions cpy to manage it or a fund manager if they want
to have it as a SIPP. Each employer they have during their working
career can choose whether or not to contribute into the employee's pot
- perhaps as an incentive for the employee to work for that cpy instead
of another.

Clearly some people might find it too hard to deal with - there'd have
to be provision for them too.

Or not have enough spare income to contribute enough to the scheme,
even assuming that they know how much is "enough".

--
insert witty sig here