The problem with the pension system in this country is that our labyrinthine piles upon piles of bewilderingly complex rules and regulations are in place, by and large, to stop a tiny number of people from saving too much money.
But the vast majority of the population save far too little for the future. This problem is not addressed adequately by our legislation.
It would be nice if our pensions legislation could be simplified to a level all people could understand, but I fear that is not a realistic option. After all, the government attempted to do it in 2006 with its so-called pension simplification reforms in the form of A-Day, which only resulted in a far more complex system than previously.
Many say that financial education in schools is the way forward, particularly with pensions, but I do not agree. There seems little to be gained from introducing millions of impressionable students to the pointlessness of our ability to deliver a sensible framework for people to set money aside for the future.
If people really understood the ins and outs of our pension legislation, it would likely put them off the idea of investing their lifetime savings in it. The fact the whole system has been, is and will always be subject to constant change would raise red flags to anyone looking for a stable savings environment.
Understanding the interactions of private pension savings and the state pension system, and the constant uncertainties that come with it, would probably need a degree-level course and only be suitable for the seriously committed among us.
If trying to simplify things does not work and education cannot work, what hope is there?
Such degree courses would provide lecturing opportunities for many of the Women Against State Pension Inequality members with first-hand experience of the vagaries of change. But that would be the only benefit.
So, if trying to simplify things does not work and education cannot work, what hope is there?
I think there is hope but we must start considering radical options. More of the same old, same old will simply take us deeper into the twin forests of bamboozlement and despair.
My solution to all of this is a simple one: we need two pension systems rather than one.
One of those systems should be the one we currently have and all those involved in framing its rules and regulations should be encouraged to carry on as before, keeping up the deluge of change, tweaks and u-turns. That system should be freely available to all who want to use it.
For everybody that does not want to use it, a second system should be established. A system guaranteed not to change for decades, with simple contribution rules that anyone can understand and which does not interact with the state pension at all. An exempt-exempt-taxed-based Isa would do the trick.
With two such systems, I would wager that one of them would simply fall into disuse over time.
Steve Bee is director at Jargonfree Benefits