Most respondents slam the idea and say all ministerial jobs should be mindful of intergenerational issues.
This week 103 took part in Pensions Buzz and answered questions about intergenerational fairness, FCA proposals on transfers and whether member nominated trustees need more support.
Almost 70% of respondents disagreed that an intergenerational equalities minister is needed to tackle the growing gap between young and old people.
Some said "absolutely not", one dismissed the idea as "rubbish", while another said it "sounds like something out of 'Yes Prime Minister'!"
Many pointed out that all ministerial jobs should be mindful of intergenerational issues, and therefore a specific position is unnecessary.
"The last thing we need is another government department making regulations for box ticking. Grow the economy and improve education, then our young people are capable of looking after themselves," said one.
Just under a quarter said there should be one, while 8% were undecided.
One respondent called it an "excellent idea" that has worked well in Wales, and that it would "introduce a longer-term perspective that all too often is lacking in our political economy".
Another said: "I like this idea. The baby-boomers are clearly a greedy generation, and recent history has proved that we can't rely on their sense of fair play when they get to the ballot box."
Over half of respondents said schemes should not be forced to state their policies in relation to evaluating long-term risks such as ESG.
It comes after the Law Commission has called for the statement of investment principles to require trustees to state their policy on stewardship.
Many pundits were concerned it would create too much red tape and bureaucracy for trustees, while some warned it would become yet a box-ticking exercise.
One said: "No. These are trustees' decision-making processes and should remain confidential. Stop tinkering with trust law."
Another said: "The reality is that most people just care about the return on their investment rather than a breakdown of where it comes from. Members should have the choice of investing in 'ethical funds' in defined contribution and these funds should be further accountable - not necessary to force all funds down the same route."
However, a third disagreed, arguing it should be forced on schemes. One respondent said, "We are stating it, and it should be mandatory for all schemes", while another warned that neglecting climate change risk is "arguably a breach of fiduciary duty".
Some 12% sat on the fence.
Almost 50% of respondents were undecided whether the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) proposals on transfers address concerns about outdated processes and member protection.
They said it was too early to tell, but some said it was a step in the right direction.
Less than a quarter said the FCA's plans do address these concerns, with one saying it is "long overdue" and added: "We also have to accept that there is risk in every decision we make as we (thankfully) don't know the future. But we should stop judging the past with hindsight - it's just not helpful!"
Another who agreed said there must be a much more sensible approach for the sake of members and trustees.
However, 28% disagreed, with one arguing that as long as DB to DC transfers are a statutory right, then members will continue to be vulnerable. Instead, he suggested: "Make each DB to DC transfer a voluntary decision of the trustees, and then trustees would then be in a position to protect members. Anything less than this is paper shuffling."
Nearly half agreed with this question, which came on the back of a suggestion made in the Pensions Institute's latest paper, Greatest Good 2.
Some respondents said allowing stressed DB schemes to change benefits if they are deemed unlikely to pay full benefits was a non-brainer, but with lots of caveats such as it would need member consent, scrutiny from the regulator, and extreme care to avoid a gaming system.
One said: "As long as the change of benefits happens only at the section 75 debt or buy-out stage. Schemes should be allowed to wind up by providing reduced annuities/deferred annuities for each member provided the reduction still leaves them with a PPF+ benefit."
Another respondent pointed out the regulator would need to have the resources to monitor this effectively.
Almost a third disagreed, questioning how it would work in practice, that the system could be gamed, while others maintained that "a promise is a promise".
One said: "I don't see how a 'half-way house' arrangement could work for the benefit of scheme members in the long run. PPF levels may be lower but they have some certainty."
Just over a fifth was undecided.
Well over half of respondents agreed with comments from The Pensions Regulator's executive director Andrew Warwick-Thompson that MNTs need more support from professional trustees and employers.
Many said that any additional help is welcome, given the pressures for MNTs, because they are an important part of good governance.
"In the ever increasing world of DC, member nominated trustees are more important than ever in ensuring pension arrangements provide good value and meet member needs," said one.
Another pointed out that training is on ongoing process, while one said "best practice funds have been providing this support for ages."
More than a quarter disagreed that MNTs need more help, pointing towards the regulator's Trustee Toolkit and many industry events that can educate trustees. They rang the praises of MNTs for knowing a lot more than people give them credit for.
Another was however more sceptical of MNTs, saying they "just need to apply themselves", and added: "If they don't think they can do that, then they should not stand for election to be a MNT in the first place. We don't want dilettanti in the pension's industry.
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has substantially increased the usage of its powers against trustees – posting a sharp rise in the use of formal information gathering powers and High Court production orders during the three months to the end of September....
The Pension Schemes Bill has completed its third reading, crossing its latest hurdle in the House of Commons.
An amendment to the Pensions Schemes Bill which would have seen people given a pre-booked Pension Wise appointment ahead of accessing their retirement savings has been defeated.
A proposal to ensure savers receive a Pension Wise appointment prior to accessing their retirement pot has received cross-party support in parliament, while Labour seeks net-zero pensions by 2050.
Pension scams are not just about the money lost, but the lives devastated, says Nicola Parish, so the industry must unite to defeat this scourge.