WELL done to Ian Gray (Letters, June 19) for correcting a widely-held misconception. There are currently two "think tanks" – Baron Willetts’s Resolution Foundation and Lord True’s Committee on Intergenerational Fairness – that are under the same misapprehension.
When I took my pension seven years ago, the annuity rate was one per cent and having contributed to a personal pension for 25 years (as was recommended) my level of disappointment was immeasurable.
Some pensioners may well be 60 per cent better off (using Marianne Taylor’s figures), but the vast majority can barely be described as even being comfortably off, since during the past 20 years most final salary pensions have been terminated.
Francis Deigman, Erskine.
IAN Gray highlights the statistic that pensioners have seen disposable income rise by 60 per cent in the last 12 years while many pensioners like him have not seen such a significant increase in disposable income during that same timeframe.
Ironically, at the time that the Conservative Party seeks a new Prime Minister, the answer to Mr Gray’s conundrum is provided by Benjamin Disraeli who reportedly stated that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The statistic which shows a 60 per cent increase in disposable income for pensioners over 12 years compares the average disposable income of all who are pensioners just now and all who were pensioners 12 years ago. These two groups are not the same – the original group has been boosted by those who have become pensioners in the period and has been reduced by those who have died. A more interesting statistic for Mr Gray would be a comparison of the average disposable income only of those who have been pensioners throughout the12-year period. I suspect that statistic would make sad reading.
Sandy Gemmill, Edinburgh, EH3.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here