Alan Swallow
@alanswallow.bsky.social
Retired pension risk manager, actuary, with an interest in wider economy. England rugby fan, who likes the French. And Spain. Likes balance.
See my previous thread commenting on living pension. bsky.app/profile/alan...
So consider an adequate target pension as the “Living Pension”.
There are a series of reports on this produced by the Resolution Foundation - latest, Sept 2024, produced by M Broome, “Calculating a living pension: the 2024 update.”
This gives a LIving Pension target of £19,300 pa.
9/24
There are a series of reports on this produced by the Resolution Foundation - latest, Sept 2024, produced by M Broome, “Calculating a living pension: the 2024 update.”
This gives a LIving Pension target of £19,300 pa.
9/24
November 20, 2025 at 6:03 PM
See my previous thread commenting on living pension. bsky.app/profile/alan...
And this approach is consistent with groundwork laid by last pension commission. Quite agree.
November 20, 2025 at 6:01 PM
And this approach is consistent with groundwork laid by last pension commission. Quite agree.
LOL.
Is the proportion of population above, say, age 60 more than 50%?
Or less than 30%?
Does memory improve with age?
What utter drivel.
Is the proportion of population above, say, age 60 more than 50%?
Or less than 30%?
Does memory improve with age?
What utter drivel.
November 14, 2025 at 5:24 PM
LOL.
Is the proportion of population above, say, age 60 more than 50%?
Or less than 30%?
Does memory improve with age?
What utter drivel.
Is the proportion of population above, say, age 60 more than 50%?
Or less than 30%?
Does memory improve with age?
What utter drivel.
Reposted by Alan Swallow
Via @sundersays.bsky.social the Conservatives' draft legislation - absolutely clear that it applies to (and is intended to apply to) legal permanent residents claiming state pension (on the basis of their contributions) or child benefit for British kids.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...
October 22, 2025 at 6:40 AM
Via @sundersays.bsky.social the Conservatives' draft legislation - absolutely clear that it applies to (and is intended to apply to) legal permanent residents claiming state pension (on the basis of their contributions) or child benefit for British kids.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...
I would say a lack of care and attention across the piece, for years, each step eating away as increasing numbers first closed to new joiners, then accrual…
On the one hand politicians lauded our system and on the other demonstrated they understood the bigger, long term picture not at all.
On the one hand politicians lauded our system and on the other demonstrated they understood the bigger, long term picture not at all.
October 13, 2025 at 9:55 AM
I would say a lack of care and attention across the piece, for years, each step eating away as increasing numbers first closed to new joiners, then accrual…
On the one hand politicians lauded our system and on the other demonstrated they understood the bigger, long term picture not at all.
On the one hand politicians lauded our system and on the other demonstrated they understood the bigger, long term picture not at all.
The mid 2000s PPF levy etc.
Difficult to see how the increased guarantees, starting from 1984 on, were in isolation the cause of demise. A notable and often understated factor. Yes.
Difficult to see how the increased guarantees, starting from 1984 on, were in isolation the cause of demise. A notable and often understated factor. Yes.
October 13, 2025 at 9:55 AM
The mid 2000s PPF levy etc.
Difficult to see how the increased guarantees, starting from 1984 on, were in isolation the cause of demise. A notable and often understated factor. Yes.
Difficult to see how the increased guarantees, starting from 1984 on, were in isolation the cause of demise. A notable and often understated factor. Yes.
Widespread DB arose after contracting out of generous SERPS state pension in 80s. Quickly hit problems with 90s recession. +other notable issues in 90s. Then Pensions Act massively increased red tape (from business POV). MFR, + Reference Test burdens. Horror at increased wind up cost in early 2000s
October 13, 2025 at 9:55 AM
Widespread DB arose after contracting out of generous SERPS state pension in 80s. Quickly hit problems with 90s recession. +other notable issues in 90s. Then Pensions Act massively increased red tape (from business POV). MFR, + Reference Test burdens. Horror at increased wind up cost in early 2000s
Not blaming higher guarantees for demise of DB, but made accounting and solvency difficult. +Perhaps QE + austerity were bad responses from DB POV. I felt companies with DB were left hamstrung by GFC response. Japan “chose” deflation over asset protection as its solution. Always winners and losers.
October 12, 2025 at 9:31 AM
Not blaming higher guarantees for demise of DB, but made accounting and solvency difficult. +Perhaps QE + austerity were bad responses from DB POV. I felt companies with DB were left hamstrung by GFC response. Japan “chose” deflation over asset protection as its solution. Always winners and losers.
Difficult. There are some surpluses these days? Higher interest rates due to rising inflation expectations. Lower liability values - improved funding? Especially if fixed benefits? PPF OK? To what extent do “rules”permit perhaps an equitable use of surplus to support benefits falling in real terms?
October 12, 2025 at 9:31 AM
Difficult. There are some surpluses these days? Higher interest rates due to rising inflation expectations. Lower liability values - improved funding? Especially if fixed benefits? PPF OK? To what extent do “rules”permit perhaps an equitable use of surplus to support benefits falling in real terms?
Nonetheless, some might see there is a difficult balance between protection for all (more constrained approaches) vs higher benefits for the many with some getting nothing - this latter case average benefits possibly (?) higher over long term but there were some bad losers along the way.
October 11, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Nonetheless, some might see there is a difficult balance between protection for all (more constrained approaches) vs higher benefits for the many with some getting nothing - this latter case average benefits possibly (?) higher over long term but there were some bad losers along the way.
Agree. The increasingly straightjacketed approach of increases to retired and non retired benefits removed much flexibility in the approach to funding and investment. An often under appreciated point.
October 11, 2025 at 8:53 AM
Agree. The increasingly straightjacketed approach of increases to retired and non retired benefits removed much flexibility in the approach to funding and investment. An often under appreciated point.
Agree. Also EU directive leading to changing measures required on wind up circa 2003, along with the FRS17 and IAS19 accounting standards, gave major impetus for de-risking. Exit prior to that was more 50/50 estimate for non retirees.
October 11, 2025 at 8:45 AM
Agree. Also EU directive leading to changing measures required on wind up circa 2003, along with the FRS17 and IAS19 accounting standards, gave major impetus for de-risking. Exit prior to that was more 50/50 estimate for non retirees.
Is it the case she wants to get rid of the jobs her government created to deal with the extra admin they created eg Brexit? Will she just look at how the civil service has expanded in terms of cost, not function, and just blame eg covid expansion, to chime with support, without thought or analysis?
October 7, 2025 at 12:16 PM
Is it the case she wants to get rid of the jobs her government created to deal with the extra admin they created eg Brexit? Will she just look at how the civil service has expanded in terms of cost, not function, and just blame eg covid expansion, to chime with support, without thought or analysis?