RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Stargazer57

BoxerfanUK wrote: »

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:.

So you are saying, with emphasis, that the taxpayer has given you twice what you were expecting (in value, not amount) and you were unaware of this. In what sense has the extra money not been wasted?

Old_Slaphead

BoxerfanUK wrote: »

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.

Life expectancy for a 60 year old retiree has roughly doubled in the last 28 years ergo the cost of providing your pension has done the same.

Ripoff_2

Haybob wrote: »

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.

Yes, but it was built to highlight the problem for Private Pensioners and thus I have not promoted it here because of the wider issues with Public Sector pensioners. It does contain however useful information others may be able to use.

Regarding a Facebook Campaign, I have set up a community page called "Stop the change from RPI to CPI for pensioner indexing" but this is all new to me and though I thought I would give it a go perhaps there is someone out there that could take this on and move it forward and do a far better job than me. My skills on facebook are limited to say the least and I am not sure I have set up the page correctly to start the campaign properly. Maybe facebook is the wrong audience?

Ripoff_2

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Life expectancy for a 60 year old retiree has roughly doubled in the last 28 years ergo the cost of providing your pension has done the same.

I don't fully buy into the mantra that people are living longer, etc etc it is not rocket science that people live longer as health improves but it is also not rocket science that this fact was known 40 years ago. I expected to live longer than my father and he expected to live longer than his father.

But this post is not about that, this is another issue entirely.

This post is really about Right and Wrong.

We all paid for our pensions when working and were promised certain terms and conditions, once we retired. A full RPI indexed linked pension was one of those conditions. Taking that away for pensions in payment no matter what you think about the issue is an act of betrayal, and it is also a trust issue.

It is totally wrong because it breaks the pension basic rules that once a pension is in payment, then the terms and conditions remain sacrosanct.

This change has far greater implications, in that pensions of the future and the terms and conditions of those future pensions will not be able to be relied up on, if the Government gets away with this change. This is because any pension terms and conditions will not be worth the paper they are written on if changes can be made retrospectively by Government, as they think fit. Where would that end?

This issue is far wider than the argument about longevity, or deficit reduction or affordability, it's about the fundamental trust between the Government and the people.

If we can't trust our pension arrangements in payment not to be changed by Government, then not only will pensions be devalued as a source of retirement income but also they will be totally undermined.

Ripoff_2

MPs return on Monday and the pension Minister Steve Webb is set for a grilling see link

http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1935541/mps-set-grill-steve-webb?WT.rss_f=Home&WT.rss_a=MPs+set+to+grill+Steve+Webb+

Old_Slaphead

Ripoff wrote: »

But this post is not about that, this is another issue entirely.

This post is really about Right and Wrong.

No the post is because the changes affect YOU.

There's been many wrongs inflicted through the pension scheme in the last decade and I don't remember you posting about them - indeed, having (I assume) a nice guaranteed pension you've probably been totally unaware of what's been going on.

Goldwing1

Also don't forget that in the 90's, many companies took "payment holidays" because the pension schemes were in surplus. Then a certain Gordon Brown took away the tax breaks for the pension schemes (Not the people paying into it). Also, the method of working out if a scheme was in surplus or not was changed and that pushed a number into the red.

That's all ignored now though and it's "our" fault for suddenly living longer.

Haybob

This campaign, at present, appears rather fragmented, each Union/Pressure group trying to argue its case in isolation. There are some that believe that there is a 'custom and practice' to be considered. I have always thought that the attack is on public and expublic servants and all affected should combine against this outrage, now Royal Mail's employees are just waking up to this injustice in that it could well affect their pensions.

MEY_3

Yes you are right "Old Slaphead"! It is all about "Ripoff" - and the millions of others affected by this change, both now and in the future. All your posts on this topic are not arguing about rights or wrongs but seem to be laced with jealousy. You cannot bear that others may have a better pension provision purely by dint of the fact that the taxpayer underwrites the schemes. Whose fault is that? You even suggest that as people, on average, (very important that word "average") are living longer they are being excessive in defending their perceived right to RPI linking. When I joined my pension scheme I accepted the terms offered, as described. All I want now is that contract fulfilled. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure "Ripoff" and others feels the same way. Your attitude is like a gambler who wants his money back after realising he's backed the wrong horse, or doesn't want others to collect their winnings because he lost.
I'm sure we all feel strongly about pension wrongs others have suffered from Maxwell onward but I think you should reserve your ire for successive governments who have serially failed to tighten up the whole legislation since that debacle. Don't keep criticising those who have a justified grievance over this issue for trying to organise resistance to it. The idea that the taxpayer funds it all is a big smokescreen in reality, as regards this issue. Trying to reduce the governments commitments by changing the indexing is nothing but a fraud if that index is not fit for purpose. Please address that issue instead of banging on about what you think are over-generous terms for state-underwritten pensioners. If you must continue for heaven's sake begin a new thread relevant to that point.

Goldwing1

MEY wrote: »

Yes you are right "Old Slaphead"! It is all about "Ripoff" - and the millions of others affected by this change, both now and in the future. All your posts on this topic are not arguing about rights or wrongs but seem to be laced with jealousy. You cannot bear that others may have a better pension provision purely by dint of the fact that the taxpayer underwrites the schemes. Whose fault is that? You even suggest that as people, on average, (very important that word "average") are living longer they are being excessive in defending their perceived right to RPI linking. When I joined my pension scheme I accepted the terms offered, as described. All I want now is that contract fulfilled. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure "Ripoff" and others feels the same way. Your attitude is like a gambler who wants his money back after realising he's backed the wrong horse, or doesn't want others to collect their winnings because he lost.
I'm sure we all feel strongly about pension wrongs others have suffered from Maxwell onward but I think you should reserve your ire for successive governments who have serially failed to tighten up the whole legislation since that debacle. Don't keep criticising those who have a justified grievance over this issue for trying to organise resistance to it. The idea that the taxpayer funds it all is a big smokescreen in reality, as regards this issue. Trying to reduce the governments commitments by changing the indexing is nothing but a fraud if that index is not fit for purpose. Please address that issue instead of banging on about what you think are over-generous terms for state-underwritten pensioners. If you must continue for heaven's sake begin a new thread relevant to that point.

Well put. Thankyou.