RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

JohnB47

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.

Succint, to the point and in my opinion correct.

BoxerfanUK

Stargazer57 wrote: »

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?

Erm, i'm sorry you've totally lost me here!!!!! How is the taxpayer giving me TWICE what I was expecting? Please explain.

Haybob

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.

Great post, also expresses my feelings exactly.

BoxerfanUK

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.

:T:T:T:T Vell well said Mev, nothing worse than the green eyed monster is there

Stargazer57

BoxerfanUK wrote: »

Erm, i'm sorry you've totally lost me here!!!!! How is the taxpayer giving me TWICE what I was expecting? Please explain.

The capital value today of any given index-linked pension will be of the order of double what it was when employment commenced. In part this is because life expectancy has improved, but an equally significant factor has been the rising cost of buying in advance a stream of index-linked income for a constant period.

Public sector workers are blissfully unaware of this because, for most of them, the terms of their pension schemes have remained unchanged for existing employees. Combined contribution rates (from employee and employer) are still of the order of 20% of pay, but on the mark-to-market terms now required in the private sector something close to 40% of pay would be needed.

Now you and the the other beneficiaries may say you don't care. You think you have a promise which should be honoured. But I say you are getting about double (in value) what you expected, so you don't have a moral case. You may have a legal one, but I assume the Government has taken advice on it.

Now I've got a question for you. The public sector unions all employ pension specialists. They will all have known for years that the phraseology in the pension scheme rules governing pension increases will not have provided as much comfort as in a typical private sector scheme because it referred to statute rather than to the RPI directly. Why didn't they negotiate to change this? Why wait until the change is made and only then complain about it? Were they perhaps worried that if they drew attention to the weakness of the guarantee that change would actually be precipitated?

Old_Slaphead

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.

Good ripost - I'm honoured.

You will no doubt have seen that both myself & partner are beneficiaries of index linked FS schemes so the 'green eyed monster' doesn't get a look in. But, unlike you it seems, I also know the phenominal cost of schemes and accept that somebody has to pay for them - usually someone far less well off who can ill afford it.

The primary beneficiaries are decently paid public servants who's main raison d'etre for a generous pension was their low paid public service employment. For a number of years that is no longer applicable so the rules need to and will change.

If private companies, subject to free competition, grant their staff generous pensions suitably inflation-proofed then I say good luck to them.

What disappoints me is those pseudo-privatised utilities which cling to unfair virtual monopolistic market positions and government guarantees to support their uncompetitive pay structures and unaffordable benefits (after all BT is basically a large pension fund with a small telecomms subsidiary). How many tens of thousands of staff have BT had to get rid of to become anywhere near competitive and the service offered and cost is lousy. Look at BA - it only continues because of it's unfair monopoly of lucrative North Atlantic slots.

If you have a legal case for your RPI indexing then good for you - if not, tough. It's not about what you think or were told it's what your contract specifically says. If you had a watertight case your Unions lawyers would have said so.

As to your final comment - this is a public forum used for debate. If you and your little coterie wish it to be exclusively to winge amongst yourself then fair enough. If your argument, and your obvious weight of numbers cannot stand the test of a bit of criticism, then your case sounds weak.

Unfortunately the government doesn't concede on the fairness/unfairness principle. I know that after spending many years campaining for justice with EMAG.

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead", I can take criticism but my beef with you is not the thrust of your argument about public and "pseudo"-public service pensions and their affordability but that those aspects are irrelevant to the debate about RPI v CPI and the EDM. Taking a look from a distance re the issue that needles you one can only say that if the pension scemes were beginning now I am sure they'd be drawn differently but the fact is that isn't what this debate is about.
So many (think of within the banks and politicians for instance) have gained far more handsomely than the majority of public servants by helping to "arrange" their rules between themselves for lucrative payoffs and bonuses and pensions. Please put them in your sights first before aiming at the small guy. I don't see that private firms should have anymore rights to grant decent pensions than any other employer either.
I'm not going to respond to your comments about ex-nationalised industries because that will open up a debate far off topic. Needless to say though I am not in agreement with your comments.
As for merits of any challenge over RPI to CPI we shall have to wait and see. I daresay many of those both on here, and off, are not in a union re this issue so I am not sure what advice or action any unions may be taking. Personally, I don't think the others nor myself are whinging. Most of my time seems to spent responding to all you "off-topic" posters. It was only by the time you reached the 6th paragraph that you got back to the point. You may be surprised to learn it is one I accept. If a challenge fails then it fails. What this "coterie" (your words not mine) is seeking to do is make contact and disseminate information to appraise each other of the issues, development and background, I'd say. If anyone contributes to that or debunks it that's fine, As you say, it is a public forum. But PLEASE remain on the issue of EDMs or RPI/CPI and don't persistently bring to the thread irrelevancies about whether you think the pension system right and fair, unaffordable or any other business that has no bearing on the issue .

KMK

I have tried to complain to both my MP and also to Steve Webb about CPI v RPI. My MP (Lib Dem) sent back a rambling letter trying to justify CPI, referring at one point to how it would benefit pensioners in retirement homes. He lost me there! He will not sign the EDM.

I also contacted Steve Webb who passed on my e mail to the DWP and I got another rambling reply about how state pensions are indexed to September's figures, when I had asked about public sector pensions being linked to CPI. Webb did not even reply.

Do they read the letters Do they care? What on earth can we do now that they seem to be in government for the forseeable future? Is it a done deal?

MEY_3

"Stargazer57", now for your latest post.
Firstly you still don't get it. When anyone joined the pension schemes in the public sector they'd be generally aware it was underwritten by the government/taxpayer. You are looking at the issue through the eyes of a pension analyst. I know of no-one who debated the value of his/her pension, other than feeling it was a good scheme. They'd assess their entitlement based on service and would gauge that the maximum one could get is about 50% of their final salary after 40 years. They would extrapolate the pensions value from that, and not some ratio of what it was designed to deliver for x number of years etc. Someone managing the scheme would have to look at it in the way you suggest but not a recipient.
The length of time someone draws a pension is also important for a scheme manager but the only concern for the employee/pensioner is that they'll get it until they expire - whether that be 65 or 105. So, there is no "moral" argument to it. You are really saying the pension is worth twice as much as the scheme was desgined to deliver not twice the value the recipient expected. Two different things, and not the first concern of the pensioner either.

Your final point about the unions' pension specialists being aware of the actual Deed rules is a serious allegation. If you are correct then they have deceived their members. But of course, for it to be true every union involved must have acted similarly. Not only that but it must then follow that every trustee was aware. So why pray, would they never highlight this anomaly in pension literature? Were they also practising deceit or was it even a conspiracy? Is that what you are suggesting?

As I have said to Old Slaphead I'm sure everyone appreciates your views on the RPI issue but that re the notional value of pensions etc, etc is not relevant to this thread and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is a recurring theme, unless a device to try to distract from the issue at hand; namely the change from RPI to CPI/the EDM and whether it is moral, fair, sensible and well thought-through. You have made your point and I don't think any of the contributors here is unaware of your position, even if they don't agree, so why repeat it ad nauseum?

Stargazer57

MEY wrote: »

You have made your point and I don't think any of the contributors here is unaware of your position, even if they don't agree, so why repeat it ad nauseum?

My last post was a response to a poster who claimed not to understand my position at all.

If repetition was a crime on this thread, I wouldn't be the main offender.

If some posters here wish to share information about a campaign without intervention from people with dissenting views they need to find their own sandpit to play in. And if you are trying to sway public opinion, you need to be encouraging dissenting views and winning the argument. (Which doesn't consist of starting with "You still don't get it")