Morning Line: Will Clegg and Cameron provide a better retirement for us all?

1) Cuts focussed first on natural wastage and redeployment of existing staff.

2) An immediate ceiling on salaries, I would say absolute max £60k and sliding scale to say £25k

3) reduce management numbers and salaries to conserve front line staff. Start respecting all front line workers much much more,

4) progressively increase front line pay with partial management responsibilities, shared amoungst workforce and properly paid.

5) Cap pensions to average wage equivalent

6) Cap redundancy payments to average wage equivalent

7) Rigorously recover bank recapiltalisation with market rate interest.

8) Outlaw over 100% mortgages

9) More in same vein.

10) Remember it was the banks that caused all this not Brown/Darling, ultimately Thatchers policies.

I would like to recomend Steve Bee's ideas on Pensions to all independant responcible people, those willing to fend for themselves, and not wanting to be a burden to there families and THE STATE.....

THE STATE SHOULD take notice, the population should in everyones interest , BE ENCOURAGED to shoulder there responcibilities.

Taking millions off the STATE T?T , there by getting rid of the NANY STATE which so many of us have been "hooked on" by Gov.uk for decades .

Steve do us all a favour, and pass your advice on to G. Osbourne and V. Cable please ?

"Less popular, and for some the sole reason they didn't vote Tory, is a review of the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66. This is a necessary evil."

Why? You've just made a throw away line without anything to support what you are saying. A bit lazy on your part Mr M.

This subject had already been reviewed by Labour and they had brought about changes to the date when people can claim their State Pension. People quite reasonably have undertaken their financial planning on this basis. How often have I heard from pensions experts that you need a long term horizon to provide for a reasonable pension? Bringing in such a change in less than 6 years time does not allow those in their mid 50s and above to plan and fill the gap by such a change especially if they have already been forced into early retirement because of the recession.

Also why 66? What is the logic - oh yes to save some money and not to have a sensible pensions policy.

Why should it be deferred to 2020 for women? Oh yes it would be really unpopular because their retirement age is already being raised from 60. So what?

Rationale thinking, I think not. And yes I have previously voted Tory and didn't solely on this issue. It could be the reason they have a hung Parliament as I saw some calculations showing that they would be in the majority if they had just 20,000 more votes in key constituencies. In the 55- 59 age band there are at least 2 million of us affected by this change.

Richardstow needs to understand that Labour have lost the election and he and his labour cohorts should now stop spinning.

The only reason the banks were able to behave as they did was because of Labour's rubbish regulation. Let's not forget the banks actions were encouraged by the Labour government.

Remember that the Labour government was responsible for giving a knighthood to Sir Fred Goodwin for doing their bidding.

Quote "2) An immediate ceiling on salaries, I would say absolute max £60k and sliding scale to say £25k"

I assume you mean for the public sector only? Oh, wait a minute, you won't get many, sorry ANY, doctors in the public sector at all at that rate - ah well the end of state healthcare - not very socialist, brother?

Unless of course you mean for the private sector too? Mass emigration, less government tax take, end of country. Apart of course from the few that stay and with salaries capped then the only wealthy left will be those with inherited wealth! Again not very socialist.

Or were you just going to shoot the wealthy?

Thats the bottom line.

In reality £60k+ is unjustifiable as a public sector salary while front line services are cut. We all know differentials are wider than ever and have seen how management can manipulate renumeration panels, Goodwin's probably the worst in history. I've seen plenty myself. Nice early retirement deals etc.

Business salaries are clearly driven by profit, OK as long as honest.

As Brown recognised, banks needed more regulation. We know how that would have been received. Over 100% mortgages were key to the downfall.

Me - Hard working self employed PhD entrepreneur/innovator thus saved 6% of UK water by innovation. Max earning £30k.

Not Labour spin.

Not grumbling about my lot, but there are many useless management and "professionals" who cream off shed loads and do little for it . They should be reined in before front line services

The problem is the public sector doesn't understand the private sector.

In the private sector if you have a salary north of £100k you are really expected to earn it, and in my experience they put in very long hours and work many weekends and very rarely take anywhere near their full holiday entitlement. In the public sector too often they seem to work 9 - 6 or 6.30 and never go near their office at the weekend and always take all the holiday that is owed to them.

One person I know who moved from the public to the private sector couldn't hack the hours that were expected and resigned after 9 months. I mentioned this to a senior Whitehall mandarin I met and he explained it was probably actually a quite junior person. You should have seen his face when I said that I didn't think they were that junior as they had a knighthood.

People seem too ready to deride the public sector in comparison with all the good that supposedly goes on in the private sector.

The truth is there is good and bad in each and they can learn from one another.

Don't forget the public sector came to rescue of the private sector during the credit crunch. It was public sector brains that worked out what needed to be done to avoid a depression. The UK is credited with finding the answers the quickest out of all of the countries. Don't be fooled into thinking it was soley the politicans who came up with it all.

I also know many examples of where private sector people have not been able to hack it in the public sector. Some are surprised at how hard people work for the money, the level of expertise and the high standard of ethics compared with where they have come from. There are certainly many outstanding individuals who could earn much more working somewhere else but want to contribute to the public good.

I know people in the public sector get a bit tired of all the rhetoric around protecting front line services and cutting out all the back room stuff. Show me a private sector organisation that doesn't have an HR function/ IT support/ finance staff/ procurement people. True you can always become more efficient but you can't do without back room people.

If the annuitisation age is removed, the tax take of 82% should be removed on pension pots and reward with a 35% take on death, if the estate is subject to IHT.

That would be a positive incentive for providing for old age.

I am self employed. I work seven days a week and I put money aside so that when I retire I can have a good time.

However all my money will be subject to CGT of 50% so I now have to work extra hard to get a decent standard of living for retirement.

Why can't I save for my retirement? Why am I penalised for doing so even if it is me taking the financial risks?

Here's looking for a civil servant position and a lovely retirement after a dossy working life of short hours, extended holidays and no responsibility