RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Stargazer57

Ripoff wrote: »

What about the widows of these penions, they will see their income fall over time. The forces pension is a good example, war widows will lose thousands of pounds, then there are the police and firemens widows, then BT, Britsh Gas etc widows that all will see their income fall over time, and they could be trying to bring up children on their own, so the children also will suffer.

I don't recognise the "suffering" about which you write. Even after the RPI to CPI change all these widows will be getting a benefit which is much more valuable than they expected because the cost of annuities has risen greatly in the last few years. Taxpayers, most of whom will really be suffering, will have to pick up the tab. I support any measures to contain this increase in costs and I'm confident my MP will do likewise, so I won't even bother to write to him to urge him not to sign the EDM.

MEY_3

But this applies to pensioners and scheme members who are not paid from the public purse too but whose schemes are linked to public pensions because of historical devolvement from them but are now private schemes. How can that be justified?

MEY_3

"Literature will usually contain a note somewhere saying something like anything in the literature is for illustrative purposes only, and in the case of conflict scheme rules will take precedence.[/QUOTE]

But what if it doesn't? The devil is in the detail and many people may have been informed in many different ways, in print, over the years. I have several examples, but I am sure not all if any of which have a disclaimer, but will double check. They are not illustrations or examples but statements of how one's pension functions. My suspicion is that many scheme members are affected in different ways depending on what info they have been given, whether still in employment, actual pensioners through retirement, deferred pensioners, or pensioners through voluntary redundancy and possibly other means. And my experience only extends to BT and not to other former nationalised utilities. It may be more complex than anyone realises and have implications the government haven't fully considered - hence the Early Day Motion.

Thanks very much for your input though.

Stargazer57

MEY wrote: »

But this applies to pensioners and scheme members who are not paid from the public purse too but whose schemes are linked to public pensions because of historical devolvement from them but are now private schemes. How can that be justified?

I know - I've got a deferred pension from a private sector scheme. But unlike most posters here I have tracked its value every year since I left. It has been my most successful investment over the last 15 years. Even if linked to CPI in future it will still have outperformed equities over that period. As a baby boomer I'm a member of the best pensioned generation there has been or there will ever be even after the change in indexation. So while my pension is worth less than it was a year ago it has still been a very good deal for me.

Ripoff_2

Goldwing1 wrote: »

Anyway,
I've had a reply from my MP (Damian Green) He doesn't support the early day motion

As of today the signature count has risen to 30 and are split as follows: 19 labour, 4 Liberal Democrats, 0 Conservatives, 17 Other

Do not dispair it highlights to the MP's that this is an issue!

Ripoff_2

Stargazer57 wrote: »

I don't recognise the "suffering" about which you write. Even after the RPI to CPI change all these widows will be getting a benefit which is much more valuable than they expected because the cost of annuities has risen greatly in the last few years. Taxpayers, most of whom will really be suffering, will have to pick up the tab. I support any measures to contain this increase in costs and I'm confident my MP will do likewise, so I won't even bother to write to him to urge him not to sign the EDM.

Please read comment from MEY, this is spot on, it's not just to do with public sector pensions and money from the public purse. It is far more commplicated than that.

Ripoff_2

As of today the signature count has risen to 30 and are split as follows: 19 labour, 4 Liberal Democrats, 0 Conservatives, 17 Other

Ask your friends and family to do the same but don't dispair it keeps it on the political agenda, short of going out on the streets and marching on Whitehall, how do we get our message accross? I hope commonsense prevails on this because the Government know they are wrong on it and they know we know that they know but it's in thier court to think again and at least delay implimentation until they can prove that CPI is better for pension inflation indexing. At the moment , they can not make that case while ever housing costs are missing from the measure. Council Tax accounts for at least 10% of pensioner expenditure and it can not be avoided, it has to be paid by law. Just one example of how wrong this change is and how unfair. Thanks for taking the time to write to your MP.

Old_Slaphead

Ripoff wrote: »

At the moment , they can not make that case while ever housing costs are missing from the measure. Council Tax accounts for at least 10% of pensioner expenditure and it can not be avoided, it has to be paid by law. Just one example of how wrong this change is and how unfair. Thanks for taking the time to write to your MP.

And what's one of the biggest reasons for high council taxes - staff pensions. Why should public sector staff be partially insulated from this cost at the expense of those not lucky enough to receive such generous benefits?

Ripoff_2

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

And what's one of the biggest reasons for high council taxes - staff pensions. Why should public sector staff be partially insulated from this cost at the expense of those not lucky enough to receive such generous benefits?

I am sure many public sector staff will take an exception to your remark, especially about generous pensions. What you do not, I think realise is that the average public sector pension is far lower than you have been led to believe, local council pension average for example is just £4044 per year.

The civil service average is £6200, NHS is £7000, Forces is £8693 the police and firefighters have the highest at £14k and £12k. What you have to take into account is that most of this is only after 40 years service and most have paid for them with deductions from their wages each month of approx. 6% for those 40 years. (Forces is non contributory I do know that, and I know their are different year terms for the police).

I am not a pension expert and don't pretend to know all about the different pension schemes out there but for the general worker I don't think these are large pensions by any means and remember these are average figures so there will be many people getting far less than this after their years of service. I am sure you would not begrudge the forces and the widows their pensions, they have sacrificed so much for you and I.

I am not even in the public sector pension scheme but in a private sector scheme and I am still being hit by this RPI to CPI change, so how do you justify that?

There are some Headline pensions I know but the general public do not get massive pensions, they are not what people are being led to believe.

wotsthat

I am sure many public sector staff will take an exception to your remark, especially about generous pensions. What you do not, I think realise is that the average public sector pension is far lower than you have been led to believe, local council pension average for example is just £4044 per year.

£4044 per year is a low pension but it doesn't follow that the benefits are poor. Contribution rates to achieve this level of pension would be much higher privately and public sector employee contributions also go towards other things such as death in service benefit.

I think on average public sector employees contribute 6% of salary but receive 14% worth of benefit - if part of your argument against the RPI to CPI change is that public sector pension benefits are poor then the argument is flawed.