RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead", 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"

Well, as far as I am concerned that's fine. I'm not sure about "watertight" though because few legal documents are written that straightforwardly that they are watertight, as such.

On the second point, I think that my comment is accurate for the majority of folk who are around pension age now, though maybe not so true in more recent years, but I accept your doubts.

Haybob

Reading the contributions, I wonder if 'old slaphead and stargazer' have any pensions worth defending.

Old_Slaphead

MEY wrote: »

On the second point, I think that my comment is accurate for the majority of folk who are around pension age now, though maybe not so true in more recent years, but I accept your doubts.

The people around pension age now, when they started working about 40-50 years ago, anticipated 10 years pension. In reality they're going to get 25 - hence the problem with pension funding. If unions/workers had accepted the need to work until 70 there would have been none of this CPI/RPI, career average, increased contribs mularky.

Public schemes and ex nationalised utilities with taxpayer guarantees seemed, until recently, totally oblivious to this (indeed the union & Labour party still do)- something that the private sector cottoned on to a decade or more ago.

Old_Slaphead

Haybob wrote: »

Reading the contributions, I wonder if 'old slaphead and stargazer' have any pensions worth defending.

I have a (smallish) FS pension and my partner is a longstanding member of LGPs. We both think it unfair that the younger generation should bear the full 'gold plated' cost effect of these whilst having no possibility of similar benefits themselves and the added burden of high house prices, student loans etc.

Certain of the baby-boomer generation really have had-it-all

Haybob

Please don't fall for all that propaganda about the poor youngsters paying for it all, half of them are not even working, most baby boomers started work as teenagers on leaving school and worked long and hard for their pension and when times were good companies took pension holidays when they did not contribute a penny and now times are tight they want an easy way out. By the time present youngsters get their pensions times will have changed, stock markets etc will have risen and they will get their share, but only if we hold governments accountable when breaking trust in pensions. Incidentally LGPS are self funded so why have the trustees and employers let them get in debt? It surely was not the fault of members such as your wife that duly paid 6% of their salary on the understanding that index linking would be the RPI.

Old_Slaphead

Haybob wrote: »

Incidentally LGPS are self funded so why have the trustees and employers let them get in debt? It surely was not the fault of members such as your wife that duly paid 6% of their salary on the understanding that index linking would be the RPI.

LGPS are not "self funded" whatever you mean by that.

Quite simply 6% pa contribution was totally inadequate to meet the payout levels promised and the last Labour Government was too gutless (or in hoc to the unions for funding) to try and tackle the problem. Even Tony Blair said his greatest mistake was not to attempt public sector reform.

I also suggest you do some research on the reasons why companies took pensions holidays - clearly you don't know the background.

Peoples trust in pensions was broken years ago - it's only the priviledged few holding on to government backed schemes that still refuse to move with the times. Like many others, I've taken old age provision into my own hands and am no longer relying on heavy 3rd party sponsorship to supplement me income in retirement.

Haybob

I'm pleased that you have taken your old age provision in your own hands, let's hope they don't come after it and tax it all.

mcgsp

I certainly thought I was signing up to increases linked to the RPI when I joined the BT pension scheme.

I managed to join on the last day of the old version of the pension (scheme as the increases were to be based on the actual RPI rather than join the new scheme (C) one day later which had its increases linked to the RPI with a limit of 5% but in some ways the new scheme was more modern. The clear offer of unlimited RPI overrode other considerations as at the time it was not unusual for the RPI to be above 5%.

It's ironic that now Scheme C may turn out to be the better scheme as it may retain its link to the RPI (with a limit of 5%)!

The literature that I read on the BT pension, and I read a lot of it, was all about the RPI. I never picked up that the use of any other measure of inflation was at all likely. I might well have gone for the more modern scheme had I known that there would ever be an issue over the RPI. Hindsight is wonderful!

If the Government get away with their proposed change to the CPI (and I can see why they want and probably need the change), it bodes badly for the future - what will be the next imposed change?

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead" - Quote: The people around pension age now, when they started working about 40-50 years ago, anticipated 10 years pension. In reality they're going to get 25 - hence the problem with pension funding. If unions/workers had accepted the need to work until 70 there would have been none of this CPI/RPI, career average, increased contribs mularky. Public schemes and ex nationalised utilities with taxpayer guarantees seemed, until recently, totally oblivious to this (indeed the union & Labour party still do)- something that the private sector cottoned on to a decade or more ago."

Pension fund managers and governments may have anticipated that pensions would average out at approximately 10 years per person but I doubt any recipients assumed anything. If we all knew how long we would live we'd all manage our finanances differently.
The idea that folk work until 70 may be acceptable to some but are you seriously suggesting such a move would benefit those post baby-boomers that you say you feel sorry for later in your post? Would they willingly take on that burden? I doubt it very much. I also didn't notice previous Tory governments recognising or taking action on the pension problems that you suggest.
All this is drifting away from the original thread on this site though, but now we have maybe you should also let us know your views about tax avoidance which has cost this country very dearly for many years. I also wonder if your self-supporting old age provision might include multiple property ownership and letting - a factor that ultimately creates far bigger future problems than even pensions for the young in this country.
You still don't seem to understand that the issue for those whose work pensions are affected by the RPI change is about contracts. Rightly or wrongly all seem to be under the impression that RPI was the measure to be used. We as former employees haven't made that up. It is what we were told. We relied on our employers and trustees to inform us accurately of the pension terms. We hadn't access to the Trust Deeds and even if we had do you think it likely that we could understand them sufficiently to appreciate the finer points? I suggest that is the job of the trustees. The matter of what is best for the youth of today and the country is a noble concern but it is not the issue here at all, but a red herring. As I implied, please ask for the tax avoiders and even those such as M.P.s, who no doubt maintain an RPI link, (as well as abusing expense claims in many cases) to make the "noble sacrifice" first before in turn implying pensioners lower down the pecking order are misguided to try to fight against what they percieve as an injustice.

Old_Slaphead

MEY, although it's not the thread subject, I concur with your moral views on billionaire tax avoidance. Avoidance is legal but I think the government should change the laws to ensure that this does not continue.

Also FWIW I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in any property other than the modest house in which I live.