I have a mea culpa for Mr Brown. Yes. I did all these things, but I am a politician, not an economist. Forgive me.
Desmond Taylor, Houston., USA Texas
A sad indictment of the pension fund industry that tax credits on dividends- equivalent to 10% of an average dividend of 5% (at best), ie 0.005% of overall returns each year, has such an immense bearing on the performance of pension funds! Let's get this into perspective. I notice that no one is berating Nigel Lawson for instigating pension contribution holidays- a much more significant factor in the later pensions debacle.
David Smith, Bexley, Kent
Gordon has given you all a good time hasn't he? What are you all complaining about? The price that everyone pays in future will, of course, be very high but I didn't vote for him and so will be entitled to say I told you so! Labour = tax + spend.....always has done, always will do........
judy, Liverpool, england
Pensions may well be too complex and boring for normal headlines but surely the press, and the general public, are capable of linking the sudden loss of tax credits with the catastrophic losses in the pensions industry. Nobody can tear such huge lumps out of a healthy body and expect it not to bleed profusely. I cannot believe that Brown was actually dumn enough to believe he could get away with it. A prudent Chancellor, or just another clown?
Grandadwoof, Hampshire
Ken Irvine, Fareham, UK
The Chancellor chose to disregard the balance of the advice, which was that the risks of damaging the pension system might be significant. This is pretty bad, given the insistence by Mr Balls that it as just "the advice of Civil Servants" which led to the scrapping of the relief on dividend tax.
More frightening (and frightful) than the cavalier way with good advice, however, is the evidence that none of the advisers appear to have had much understanding of the economics of the pension system. The Revenue's crass remark that in the recent past equities had done well, so the pension funds were cushioned against the loss of tax relief confuses short term deviations from trend with long term determinants of solvency (mortality, inflation and interest rates). The Chancellor and the Revenue should have known this. Even the Financial Insititutions people missed the point, to judge by their concern with a circular loop between pension fund solvency and equity prices. Hopeless.
growltiger, London, UK
Decisions to be made on macroeconomics are complicated and dependant on so many factors. It insults our intelligence for people like Ed Balls to assert that Gordon Brown followed the "best" advice of his civil service. What was that "best" advice? The savings and investment division as oppposed to the financial institutions division?Is one more important than the other? The definition of "best" lies with Gordon Brown, no one else. There is no hiding from that, nor from the fact that those deciding on the issue can't have been the best to do so. People saving for the pensions are actually assisting the government of the future in reducing future dependency. To tax them for something they are not going to benefit from for the forseeable future appears myopic in extreme. Who is taking the longterm view? Not New Labour.
John, Munich, Germany
The Chancellor chose to disregard the balance of the advice, which was that the risks of damaging the pension system might be significant. This is pretty bad, given the insistence by Mr Balls that it as just "the advice of Civil Servants" which led to the scrapping of the relief on dividend tax.
More frightening (and frightful) than the cavalier way with good advice, however, is the evidence that none of the advisers appear to have had much understanding of the economics of the pension system. The Revenue's crass remark that in the recent past equities had done well, so the pension funds were cushioned against the loss of tax relief confuses short term deviations from trend with long term determinants of solvency (mortality, inflation and interest rates). The Chancellor and the Revenue should have known this. Even the Financial Insititutions people seem to have missed the point, given its concern with a circular loop between pension fund solvency and equity prices. Hopeless.
growltiger, London, UK
Brown has got away with his attack on pension funds for too long, partly because the media have allowed him to. Pensions are a complex and, to much of the public, a boring issue and thus they do not normally make good headlines in the press.
You have done well to force this new information ouyt of the Treasury and you should continue to keep up the pressure until the Chancellor is forced to acknowledge the harm he has wreaked.
T Evans, Bedford, UK
Gordon partly paid for his so called 'economic miracle' with the futures of the population via their stolen pension funds. The rest has been paid with gold reserves, exhorbitant taxes, and whatever surplus was kicking about that he could waste.
David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK
What a complete mess this Government has made of the economy. Pensions, Education, Health Services, Crime, Political Correctness, in fact have they perfomed any useful function at all in 10 years of irresponsible, inept Government ?
Roll on the election and David's firm hand on recovering sanity.
Norman Frodsham, Gibraltar, Gibraltar
There is more than just a hint of a cover up here. Gordon was well aware in 1997 of the impact, as was every other professional in the finance/pensions world. The worry I have is that other crass errors of judgement against logic are still continuing.
In a recent meeting with James Purnell, the Pensions Minister, he told me that anything to do with actual money is not controlled by the Pensions Minister but by the Treasury. Back to Gordon again. Millions of pensioners are now worse off as a result of 1997, and even more will be worse off under Pensions Accounts in 2012. Please can a pensions expert be put in charge so that our elderly can have the financial dignity they deserve
Mike Inkley, Preston, UK
On th eone hand we have the Government shouting about the demographic, the vast grey army like slugs on the green pound. Old people with their additional needs and their unproductive scavanging on the state. Would not self supporting, adequately provisioned, self-financed pensioners obviate the necessity for hand-outs; would they not be drivers of economics with their cash; their ability to fund private health schemes, their larger estates for the Government to cream off with their Inheritance Tax? Was not the vilification of pensioners and their outrageous costs to Government the claim that prompted large scale immigration? A double whammy! This tax on pensions companies may well have had its origins in Europe where lavish public pensions have been the norm. Would not the sequestered cash bolster European coffers in the long run? The class jealousies of Labour and the cash jealousy of Europe, make for a scheming, dulpicitous morality brilliant.
Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England
I wonder if the decision would have been taken at all if GB et al. had private pensions subject to the vagaries of the marketplace rather than guaranteed generous pensions paid for out of taxation.
I have watched my own pension projections plummet over the last 10 years whilst at the same time MPs award themselves generous pensions based on a few years of service. It's an interesting lesson in economics...
Mike Hinsley, Bristol, YK
So Brown's a liar as well, we're not really surprised are we ?
Daniel , Chester,
The civil servants involved should be hanging their heads in shame - while they enjoy their secure defined benefit pensions, the recommendations they made have cost the rest of us thousands of pounds. In particular, they betray their ignorance of the world outside government - the whole point of pension schemes building up surpluses is so they can withstand downturns in the stock market like the one that came in 2000 after the dot-com bust. Pension scheme surpluses are NOT designed to be raided by profligate Chancellors and their complacent advisers.
Stephen Clark, Boston, USA
I have a mea culpa for Mr Brown. Yes. I did all these things, but I am a politician, not an economist. Forgive me.
Desmond Taylor, Houston., USA Texas
A sad indictment of the pension fund industry that tax credits on dividends- equivalent to 10% of an average dividend of 5% (at best), ie 0.005% of overall returns each year, has such an immense bearing on the performance of pension funds! Let's get this into perspective. I notice that no one is berating Nigel Lawson for instigating pension contribution holidays- a much more significant factor in the later pensions debacle.
David Smith, Bexley, Kent
Gordon has given you all a good time hasn't he? What are you all complaining about? The price that everyone pays in future will, of course, be very high but I didn't vote for him and so will be entitled to say I told you so! Labour = tax + spend.....always has done, always will do........
judy, Liverpool, england
Pensions may well be too complex and boring for normal headlines but surely the press, and the general public, are capable of linking the sudden loss of tax credits with the catastrophic losses in the pensions industry. Nobody can tear such huge lumps out of a healthy body and expect it not to bleed profusely. I cannot believe that Brown was actually dumn enough to believe he could get away with it. A prudent Chancellor, or just another clown?
Grandadwoof, Hampshire
Ken Irvine, Fareham, UK
The Chancellor chose to disregard the balance of the advice, which was that the risks of damaging the pension system might be significant. This is pretty bad, given the insistence by Mr Balls that it as just "the advice of Civil Servants" which led to the scrapping of the relief on dividend tax.
More frightening (and frightful) than the cavalier way with good advice, however, is the evidence that none of the advisers appear to have had much understanding of the economics of the pension system. The Revenue's crass remark that in the recent past equities had done well, so the pension funds were cushioned against the loss of tax relief confuses short term deviations from trend with long term determinants of solvency (mortality, inflation and interest rates). The Chancellor and the Revenue should have known this. Even the Financial Insititutions people missed the point, to judge by their concern with a circular loop between pension fund solvency and equity prices. Hopeless.
growltiger, London, UK
Decisions to be made on macroeconomics are complicated and dependant on so many factors. It insults our intelligence for people like Ed Balls to assert that Gordon Brown followed the "best" advice of his civil service. What was that "best" advice? The savings and investment division as oppposed to the financial institutions division?Is one more important than the other? The definition of "best" lies with Gordon Brown, no one else. There is no hiding from that, nor from the fact that those deciding on the issue can't have been the best to do so. People saving for the pensions are actually assisting the government of the future in reducing future dependency. To tax them for something they are not going to benefit from for the forseeable future appears myopic in extreme. Who is taking the longterm view? Not New Labour.
John, Munich, Germany
The Chancellor chose to disregard the balance of the advice, which was that the risks of damaging the pension system might be significant. This is pretty bad, given the insistence by Mr Balls that it as just "the advice of Civil Servants" which led to the scrapping of the relief on dividend tax.
More frightening (and frightful) than the cavalier way with good advice, however, is the evidence that none of the advisers appear to have had much understanding of the economics of the pension system. The Revenue's crass remark that in the recent past equities had done well, so the pension funds were cushioned against the loss of tax relief confuses short term deviations from trend with long term determinants of solvency (mortality, inflation and interest rates). The Chancellor and the Revenue should have known this. Even the Financial Insititutions people seem to have missed the point, given its concern with a circular loop between pension fund solvency and equity prices. Hopeless.
growltiger, London, UK
Brown has got away with his attack on pension funds for too long, partly because the media have allowed him to. Pensions are a complex and, to much of the public, a boring issue and thus they do not normally make good headlines in the press.
You have done well to force this new information ouyt of the Treasury and you should continue to keep up the pressure until the Chancellor is forced to acknowledge the harm he has wreaked.
T Evans, Bedford, UK
Gordon partly paid for his so called 'economic miracle' with the futures of the population via their stolen pension funds. The rest has been paid with gold reserves, exhorbitant taxes, and whatever surplus was kicking about that he could waste.
David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK
What a complete mess this Government has made of the economy. Pensions, Education, Health Services, Crime, Political Correctness, in fact have they perfomed any useful function at all in 10 years of irresponsible, inept Government ?
Roll on the election and David's firm hand on recovering sanity.
Norman Frodsham, Gibraltar, Gibraltar
There is more than just a hint of a cover up here. Gordon was well aware in 1997 of the impact, as was every other professional in the finance/pensions world. The worry I have is that other crass errors of judgement against logic are still continuing.
In a recent meeting with James Purnell, the Pensions Minister, he told me that anything to do with actual money is not controlled by the Pensions Minister but by the Treasury. Back to Gordon again. Millions of pensioners are now worse off as a result of 1997, and even more will be worse off under Pensions Accounts in 2012. Please can a pensions expert be put in charge so that our elderly can have the financial dignity they deserve
Mike Inkley, Preston, UK
On th eone hand we have the Government shouting about the demographic, the vast grey army like slugs on the green pound. Old people with their additional needs and their unproductive scavanging on the state. Would not self supporting, adequately provisioned, self-financed pensioners obviate the necessity for hand-outs; would they not be drivers of economics with their cash; their ability to fund private health schemes, their larger estates for the Government to cream off with their Inheritance Tax? Was not the vilification of pensioners and their outrageous costs to Government the claim that prompted large scale immigration? A double whammy! This tax on pensions companies may well have had its origins in Europe where lavish public pensions have been the norm. Would not the sequestered cash bolster European coffers in the long run? The class jealousies of Labour and the cash jealousy of Europe, make for a scheming, dulpicitous morality brilliant.
Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England
I wonder if the decision would have been taken at all if GB et al. had private pensions subject to the vagaries of the marketplace rather than guaranteed generous pensions paid for out of taxation.
I have watched my own pension projections plummet over the last 10 years whilst at the same time MPs award themselves generous pensions based on a few years of service. It's an interesting lesson in economics...
Mike Hinsley, Bristol, YK
So Brown's a liar as well, we're not really surprised are we ?
Daniel , Chester,
The civil servants involved should be hanging their heads in shame - while they enjoy their secure defined benefit pensions, the recommendations they made have cost the rest of us thousands of pounds. In particular, they betray their ignorance of the world outside government - the whole point of pension schemes building up surpluses is so they can withstand downturns in the stock market like the one that came in 2000 after the dot-com bust. Pension scheme surpluses are NOT designed to be raided by profligate Chancellors and their complacent advisers.
Stephen Clark, Boston, USA