RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Ripoff_2

Slowly but surely we are getting there. 69 MPs have now signed

Not one Tory MP yet and only 4 LD's? I don't believe ALL the Tory MP's and the rest of the LD's believe in this measure, some MUST be questioning this policy now, especially with RPI inflation at 4.7% and the gap between CPI and RPI at 1.4%. Food inflation at 23% and clothes inflation at 8%, this policy WILL cause poverty the evidence is here in these figures.

Are they not supposed to represent their consituents?

Many constituents I know are asking Tory and LD's to sign this EDM, so why are they not representing them is the question?

Have they stopped listening to us already, after only six months? It usually takes a couple of years before that happens. This is arogant of them to say the least.

EDM1032 The count is 69 in total MP's have signed

LAB = 53 LD = 4 Con =0 other = 12

But we still need more, many more keep those letters and emails going in, thanks. It's NOT a waste of time because it keeps it on the radar, so to speak and it might make some LD's and perhaps the odd Tory re-think at what they doing to the very people they were supposed to represent. Keep up the fight!

Stargazer57

Ripoff wrote: »

Are they not supposed to represent their consituents?

Yes, all of them, not just the minority who may benefit from the EDM, but also the majority who will pay for it.

Ripoff_2

Stargazer57 wrote: »

Yes, all of them, not just the minority who may benefit from the EDM, but also the majority who will pay for it.

The majority will NOT pay for it, many private pension schemes such as BT and BA etc are NOT paid for by the tax payer, but by their own pension scheme and if this policy goes through as it is then many of the BT and BA etc pensioners could be pushed into poverty, especially those not yet collecting their state pensions.

This could force them to either sign on for job seekers or seek benefits from the state, while the employers and shareholders pocket the gains. You see this policy could actually cost the majority as it is proposed, so in that case I agree with you.

Hence WHY for companies like BT and BA etc they should be allowed to use the RPI as they have been doing for the past 38 years. Don't forget the tax payer will have to pay legal fees for the inevitable legal challenge so more burden on the majority, hence again why this policy should be halted.

Please do not confuse the Public Sector pensions with the Private Sector pensions of Ex public sector companies like BT and BA etc that have been private for many many years now but are being affected by this policy change.

Stargazer57

Ripoff wrote: »

Please do not confuse the Public Sector pensions with the Private Sector pensions of Ex public sector companies like BT and BA etc that have been private for many many years now but are being affected by this policy change.

You are the one confusing them. This thread, to which you have contributed many times, is about EDM1032. Here's the text of it:

That this House notes the Government's proposal to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI) for the price indexation of benefits, tax credits and public service pensions; further notes that the CPI is consistently lower than the RPI; expresses concern over the impact that this will have on the incomes of pensioners and other vulnerable groups; recognises the concerns held by the Royal Statistical Society and the UK Statistics Authority that CPI excludes many housing costs which are borne by the majority of pensioner households; and calls on the Government to take these concerns into account and postpone the change from RPI to CPI until the appropriateness of CPI as a measure of price increases borne by pensioner households can be fully evaluated.

If you want to campaign only about pensions in privatised companies, you'll need a new EDM. But in the meantime you are stuck with the above which most MPs aren't going to sign because you'ld have to put up taxes to pay for it.

Old_Slaphead

Ripoff wrote: »

The majority will NOT pay for it, many private pension schemes such as BT and BA etc are NOT paid for by the tax payer, but by their own pension scheme and if this policy goes through as it is then many of the BT and BA etc pensioners could be pushed into poverty, especially those not yet collecting their state pensions.

This could force them to either sign on for job seekers or seek benefits from the state, while the employers and shareholders pocket the gains. You see this policy could actually cost the majority as it is proposed, so in that case I agree with you.

What fantastic hyperbole.

In the short term there will hardly be any difference to the pension paid.

Anyone anticipating deferred benefits has time to save towards any shortfall.

Final salary pensions are 'gold standard' and extremely generous. Reducing the benefit from excellent to just very good will not push BT/BA pensioners into poverty (if you think otherwise then please explain why).

The majority will pay for it because it will fall on the shareholders who happen to be private pension schemes (including Local Govt Pension) who must ultimately accept lower returns. Customers may have to fund it via monopolistic landline charges or flights to USA.

As for your reference to "signing on for jobseekers" benefits - that one leaves me totally baffled.

Your narked that BT can trim your pension a bit - well welcome to the real world of broken pension promises !

MEY_3

I don't see too much confusion here Stagazer57. The basis of the EDM is correct both for state pensioners and private pensioners linked to the public sector scheme. What it asks is for the impact be evaluated before it is introduced. As RPI is the only indicator that has been used until now, no one is actually asking for anything extra. What is clear is that the RPI/CPI change is a very blunt instrument that may cause more problems than it solves. Perhaps we can all agree that whatever measure is used it should try to measure household inflation as accurately as possible. If this is not RPI all well and good, but it is certain that CPI is even less accurate and for that reason alone is unworthy.
The very fact that the change cuts across private and public schemes just emphasises further that the index change is a very poor tool to use as it stands.

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead" - Your narked that BT can trim your pension a bit - well welcome to the real world of broken pension promises !"

Who said that "the politics of envy" only applies to the left! Your position seems to be that as previous pension promises have been broken, then there is nothing wrong with seeing more people suffer in that way. All people should be entitled to pension justice. It is irrelevant that you feel a pensioner should be thankful that all he/she suffers is a trimming of their pension. The issue for those in ex-public and public sector scheme members is that they were consisently led to believe one thing and are now being told something different.
Everyone pays for someone else. That is the nature of commerce. The public pay for all pensions in one way or another, by being customers or taxpayers. I think "Ripoff" is just trying to help those of us that wish to defend our pension terms as best he can. If other pensioners in other occupations feel that they have been conned they have my support too. But I sense a little bit of jealousy. We never heard about these issues when the economy was belting along, but all of a sudden public sector pensioners are fair game. It may not have occured to you but it was the pension benefits that attracted many to work in the public sector in the first place, because they took a longer term view of life. The majority did take less well paid jobs to do that. Sour grapes are no excuse to endorse unfairness.

Ripoff_2

Stargazer57 wrote: »

You are the one confusing them. This thread, to which you have contributed many times, is about EDM1032. Here's the text of it:

That this House notes the Government's proposal to use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI) for the price indexation of benefits, tax credits and public service pensions; further notes that the CPI is consistently lower than the RPI; expresses concern over the impact that this will have on the incomes of pensioners and other vulnerable groups; recognises the concerns held by the Royal Statistical Society and the UK Statistics Authority that CPI excludes many housing costs which are borne by the majority of pensioner households; and calls on the Government to take these concerns into account and postpone the change from RPI to CPI until the appropriateness of CPI as a measure of price increases borne by pensioner households can be fully evaluated.

If you want to campaign only about pensions in privatised companies, you'll need a new EDM. But in the meantime you are stuck with the above which most MPs aren't going to sign because you'ld have to put up taxes to pay for it.

I am well aware of what the tread is about considering I set it up in the first place.

I was simply pointing out that there is confusion regarding the different effects of this policy and hence why this policy should be halted until a full impact analysis is undertaken, not rushed in and changed over from one measure to the other without understanding the full impact on ALL pensioners.

It may save money for the tax payer in the short term and look good but in the long term it could have the opposite effect. Think also of the long term social costs to peoples health, wealth and well being. It could cost the NHS more for example in stress related problems. Until a full assessment is undertaken then no one really knows.

It is not a aimed at one particular group but ALL pensioners affected and I was pointing out how the change could actually cost more to the tax payer than it appears.

In this group there are the 55 to 66 year olds that have retired on a pension that should have sustained them with RPI indexing until they can collect their state pensions. If these people have reduced pensions and thus can no longer make ends meet, especially with rising inflation. Then they may have to seek benefits or because they are still off state retirement age, seek job seekers allowance to find a job, these are the hidden costs to the tax payer.

The change is also FOR LIFE, not just for the period of deficit reduction, which by the way I have said before and I have also said that the CPI is flawed and the reasons why, so the argument goes on. You have your views and I have mine so I will agree to differ with you on them and leave it at that.

Old_Slaphead

MEY wrote: »

"Old Slaphead" - Your narked that BT can trim your pension a bit - well welcome to the real world of broken pension promises !"

Who said that "the politics of envy" only applies to the left! Your position seems to be that as previous pension promises have been broken, then there is nothing wrong with seeing more people suffer in that way. All people should be entitled to pension justice. It is irrelevant that you feel a pensioner should be thankful that all he/she suffers is a trimming of their pension. The issue for those in ex-public and public sector scheme members is that they were consisently led to believe one thing and are now being told something different.
Everyone pays for someone else. That is the nature of commerce. The public pay for all pensions in one way or another, by being customers or taxpayers. I think "Ripoff" is just trying to help those of us that wish to defend our pension terms as best he can. If other pensioners in other occupations feel that they have been conned they have my support too. But I sense a little bit of jealousy. We never heard about these issues when the economy was belting along, but all of a sudden public sector pensioners are fair game. It may not have occured to you but it was the pension benefits that attracted many to work in the public sector in the first place, because they took a longer term view of life. The majority did take less well paid jobs to do that. Sour grapes are no excuse to endorse unfairness.

As has been said before, if you have a legally watertight case then fine - if not I'm afraid it's tought luck.

As for the "majority did take less well paid jobs" that's a matter of conjecture.

wotsthat

Stargazer57 wrote: »

If you want to campaign only about pensions in privatised companies, you'll need a new EDM. But in the meantime you are stuck with the above which most MPs aren't going to sign because you'ld have to put up taxes to pay for it.

Ripoff thinks this is only about right and wrong.

Forget what the EDM says or other minor technicalities like contract law.