RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Ripoff_2

Goldwing1 wrote: »

It's not just pensioners now but pensioners to come. I'm still awaiting a final answer from Damian Green and will start reminding him next week.

I totally agree, you are right it is pensioners in the future as well and unfortunately many people working at the moment don't realise that.

A pension is too far off they think but it is surprising how fast it comes round. This fight is just as much for future pensioners. The lack of understanding of the true impact concerns me greatly not only with current pensioners but the future ones also.

It will be interesting what answer Damian Green gives because I have always thought of him as a decent Tory in that he seems to have a fair head on his shoulders. Will he keep to the party line or see this change as we do, a betrayal, a step too far and an act of deception and Theft.

Taking money from pensions in payment has always been a taboo and this is breaking that taboo. It breaks the fundamental trust between Government and the people. This action will further diminish the trust between Government and people when after 38 years of using RPI the Government can retrospectively degrade pensions in payment by simply changing the indexation method.

Is it any wonder that confidence in saving for a pension is so low when people are about to be cheated out of vast sums of money?

Old_Slaphead

You guys really amaze me!

Private pensions have been decimated. Public sector schemes are going the same way. People are worried witless about their jobs, mortgages, bills etc.

Do you really think that the vast majority out there are going to man the barricades to protect the pensions of a relatively priviledged few private employees (mostly ex utilities) who've benefited from an excessively generous pension scheme which will be unavailable to anyone in future?

If you started a petition to give equal and protected pensions to EVERYONE then that would be worthy of support.

As for anyone who's pension is "too far off" then they've plenty of time to make up any shortfall.

Stargazer57

Ripoff wrote: »

Is it any wonder that confidence in saving for a pension is so low when people are about to be cheated out of vast sums of money?

A typical public sector pensioner has a pension worth about twice what they ever thought it would be worth (as in what it would cost to buy that pension).

It is the taxpayer who has been cheated not the pensioners.

MEY_3

"Stargazer57",

Let's talk in "actualities". First, I doubt many have ever calculated what their pension would be worth in any detail, except when nearing retirement. Second, it is a fact that pensioners and prospective pensioners under affected schemes are affected because they are now due to receive a pension with less value than they were led to believe based on the all the information they were ever issued with by their trustees and their employers. It has been a deception - negligent or otherwise.
Whether the taxpayer should have been put into the position of underwriting such schemes to the extent they are is an entirely separate issue, and for a different thread, I suggest. My concern with your thrust of argument though is it is of the "race to the bottom" nature it encompasses. i.e. The "You are still getting a better pension than most. Stop whining", logic. Working people should be trying to support quality pensions for all. If private schemes are so inferior maybe it is in part due to parasitical costs taken out of contributions by those managing them. Your whole range of comments on this topic should be aimed at those responsible if you believe the taxpayer has been duped or used - not the pension scheme members who have a legitimate beef about how they have been misinformed for 38 years and wish to fight over what they believe is a legitimate grievance. Tell me, do you think it acceptable that people should allowed to be misled for so long?

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead"
The BT pension scheme is one of the biggest in the land. This issue affects many, many people now and in the future. The Civil Service are affected by this change and many of the other former public utilities. Yes, "people are worried witless about their jobs, mortgages, bills etc." but that in itself is not a reason that they should not understand the issue that these pensioners/employees have been deceived for many years.
I think the call is not for the world and his wife to "man the barricades", but to spell out the issues to them and raise awareness of the implications for those affected now and for others to be alert to similar sleights of hand in the future. It may be that other private pensioners that have suffered and not taken up cudgels (or been heard) have done so precisely because they were isolated and very often in businesses where they were not used to working in concert to protect themselves, or their numbers were too few to be effective. The governments actions over RPI/CPI affect a great many.

I've absolutely no objection to your suggestion of "a petition to give equal and protected pensions to EVERYONE then that would be worthy of support, ". Why don't you start one? Those affected by the CPI change will probably be busy enough having to devote time to their own cause in the near future but am sure would be only too willing to lend your suggested petition such support as they can afford.

Interested_Taxpayer

Ripoff wrote: »

Taking money from pensions in payment has always been a taboo and this is breaking that taboo. It breaks the fundamental trust between Government and the people. This action will further diminish the trust between Government and people when after 38 years of using RPI the Government can retrospectively degrade pensions in payment by simply changing the indexation method.

Spot on Ripoff. Furthermore, the change to CPI indexation will hurt the widows and wives more than the widowers and husbands because these changes are a default on decades old agreements and represent changing the rules when the game is nearly over. Our young government ministers forget the history of marriage, work and pensions in this country meaning that older women are more dependent on their husbands for their retirement than younger ones therefore a large number of widows will be forced into poverty because of this change.
Stealing from pensioners and from pension savings/ entitlements is simply not on and we need to fight this on the beaches if necessary!

Stargazer57

MEY wrote: »

"Stargazer57",

Let's talk in "actualities". First, I doubt many have ever calculated what their pension would be worth in any detail, except when nearing retirement.

I'm sure you are right, and if anything that strengthens my argument.

MEY wrote: »

Second, it is a fact that pensioners and prospective pensioners under affected schemes are affected because they are now due to receive a pension with less value than they were led to believe based on the all the information they were ever issued with by their trustees and their employers.

I don't agree. The vast majority of public sector pensioners are getting a pension whose value far exceeds the value of the pension they were expecting for most of their working careers. The prosposed changes may mean the amount of the pension may be less than expected, but its value will, in almost all cases, be more, and in many cases double what was expected.

MEY wrote: »

Tell me, do you think it acceptable that people should allowed to be misled for so long?

No it isn't acceptable for people to be misled. Taxpayers have been assured that these pensions were affordable while their cost doubled and no action was taken. Something should be done about it.

MEY_3

"Stargazer57"

MEY:- Let's talk in "actualities". First, I doubt many have ever calculated what their pension would be worth in any detail, except when nearing retirement.

"Stargazer57" :-
"I'm sure you are right, and if anything that strengthens my argument."

Reply from MEY:- No it doesn't. They did "know" or were led to believe it was linked to RPI. They could calculate what proprotion of their salary they'd receive per years worked. They would not know how much they'd be earning at point of retirement though. They would not be thinking in terms of how much their pension is worth vis a vis buying it privately as they wouldn't be buying it privately. They would be able to make a rough calculation each year though on what they would be due based on service and pay. You are looking at it from a very different perspective to a Civil Service linked pensioner, and because you see it like that please don't think that is how an employee would see it.

On the second point, with reference to the above, a prospective pensioner would look at service x pay plus the formula for calculation. He/she would also "know" this was linked to RPI. The use of the word "value" here is semantics. There would only be an assessment of value for most pensioners (in your meaning) based on earnings at retirement versus income from pension. If they are expecting index linking to RPI and are getting CPI they will end up with less money per year than they were expecting. Money is exchanged for goods and services so has (fluctuating) value. Hence the pensioner has less value/money at his or her disposal if pension increases diminish.
Your final point that taxpayers have been misled is only true insofar as taxpayers are misinformed over many issues. Few take the time to scrutinise these. If these pensions are unaffordable all well and good. The issue may need addressing but it is totally unacceptable to change to an inflation index that was not designed to be used in the way it is and is not a true reflection of the effects of inflation in a personal sense in any case. It is true to say all sectors attached to the Civil Service pension rules were given to understand that RPI was the linking index for 38 years, and had no means or cause to believe otherwise. The essence of your argument is that the public are entitled expect the government to make these pension promises "affordable" even if that means that the replacement of one, possibly imperfect inflation indicator, by one that is seriously inaccurate. In other words, dilute the inflation proofing by the pretence that you are making it more accurate by adopting an index that by common consent is unfit for purpose. That's not just saving money. That's chicanery.

Haybob

Ripoff wrote: »

I have already set up a Twitter ID as Ripoff_pensions and a facebook ID could well be the next step. Do many pensioners use Twitter and Facebook, I don't know and getting the message out there is the real issue. From what I am picking up from all this is that there are many people who are opposed to this change but just don't feel they have a voice. They are frustrated that their MP's are stonewalling them and they feel unrepresented, am I right in that view?

On another point. The EDM campaign has not gone away we still need more MP's to sign it so keep badgering them. At the moment 77 MP's have signed

LAB = 60 LD = 4 CON = 0 Oth = 13

Perhaps this site should be on the world wide webb with a place for people to post and also a facebook campaign.

http://home.btconnect.com/AP_Publications/Ripoff/

Is this the same Ripoff, Ripoff? If so its a good site.

BoxerfanUK

Stargazer57 wrote: »

A typical public sector pensioner has a pension worth about twice what they ever thought it would be worth (as in what it would cost to buy that pension).

It is the taxpayer who has been cheated not the pensioners.

What a load of tosh :T As a civil servant of 28 years I have been able to calculate all through my career roughly what I could expect to retire on as regards pension income. This is based upon my salary (in todays terms) divided by 80 and multiplied by projected length of service at retirement. Rocket science it isn't! I can assure you that all through my career my expectation of my pension has always been broadly the same in relation to my rank and salary, so quite where you get the idea from that I will get as a pension roughly twice what I have ever expected is beyond me!!! in a few years time I should get what I have always expected to get, certainly not double..... I should be so lucky :rotfl:

The amount of money in the pot to 'buy' the pension does not come into it in a final salary based pension.