RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

JohnB47

An excellent letter MEY.

These things must be said, so I applaud you for it but I'm afraid polititians (of all parties I suspect) find it very easy to slip and slither their way around such real questions. I'm quite sure that they are trained in this 'art'. The training probably goes something like:

Step 1 - confuse the question with another and answer that instead because you feel on safer ground with it.

Step 2 - talk, talk and talk some more. Repeat yourself constantly, bring in irrelevant points, all to waste time.

Step 3 - selectively quote professional bodies so that it appears that they support your argument. Don't mention any professional opinion that doesn't support your argument.

Step 4 - conveniently forget contradictory arguments put forward by your own party in the past.

Step 5 - never, ever, reveal the true reason for making the change that you are defending - in this case taking money out of pensioners pockets for years to come to help solve the mess made by the financial industry, polititians and regulatory bodies.

Sorry to be bitter but I've had it with the political ruling classes. As soon as any of them start talking, I get a feeling of nauseousness and anger. I'm really wondering if I'll bother to vote in future - sad isn't it?

Well done again, MEY.

Prof_as_was

In the course of today's BBC radio news low-order running story about a TUC meeting to discuss co-ordinated anti-cuts action, there have been fleeting references to a 'delay of pension changes to June'. This might matter to the RPI/CPI issue, or ot might not. I cannot track down any more about this on web. Does anybody here know about this, and where the details are?

Great stuff, MEY (361)

bendix

Prof_as_was wrote: »

Tell us Bendix, because I'm really interested to know what drives and informs your point of view, (you're not alone in holding it), did you know, in coming to your opinion of me and my Public Sector Pension, that I paid for it by a substantial voluntary subscription, in my case divi'd up every month for forty years. I don't know what you mean by "special pension arrangements". You see, I always understood my pension as a prudent investment, started as a hard-up young man, Putting something by for my old age, so that I wouldn't be a burden to anyone, including the tax-payer (or the state, which ever). And so far, I'm not. The investment earnings that I now live off, ie my occupational pension, are not that great, (though they are enough to pay tax on, so I'm a contributing tax-payer too).

This has been explained often enough in this thread before, and you could look back for more detailed explanations of what I am telling you. I wonder if you mistakenly imagine that public sector pensions are some sort of DSS benefit or state hand-out, and that's the misunderstanding that is causing you such evident stress?

"Gorging at the trough" I simply don't recognise or understand as anything that describes my working or retired life. Are you sure you're not being a tad irrational? A bit OTT?

One thing that sometimes muddies the water, of course, is that the people who should have kept and looked after my monthly subscribed money in a forty year growth fund that would have paid my current pension twice over - didn't. Govt took it as annual revenue, and spent it annually on whatever they wanted. Govt's defence of that practice (myself, I'd call it malpractice) is that in some years the Treasury (tax-payers) showed a profit (over pension money paid out), and in some years a loss (swings and roundabouts). That began to look less defensible lately, what with longevity, and was addressed quite recently by renegotiation of terms with the unions involved, so that the accounts are once again predicted to pan out evenly over time. Personally I still think the idea of 'spend the Prof's investment money annually, it'll work out OK' is irresponsible, and has damaged both me and you Bendix (as a tax-payer, I'm assuming you are). Ceratinly any problems created by the practice are not my fault, any more than they are yours.

Try to think of us as all in it together.

My opinion is based solely on the fact that while you paid in contributions over a 40 year period, the benefits you get from those contributions are substantially better than the benefits you would have received had you paid into a defined contributions pension which is the new norm in the private sector.

And as a taxpayer, I resent subsidising your pension.

It's that simple.

As for us being in it altogether, no we are not.

There is not ONE part of my pension planning which has anything to do with the Government or RPI, nor anything to do with relying on government or anyone else for that matter.

I am making my own provision - my, myself I. I will NOT be taking any government pension, I will refuse to draw the state pension instead relying on my own savings, invested prudently and privately, to fund my retirement years.

And I shall do so with a degree of pride, knowing I'm beholden to noone for looking after me financially, nor shall I be at the whim of political wind-changes.

It's called being independent, something the average Brit - so attuned to a sense of entitlement - wouldn't understand.

Instead of whining about what is fair and what is not fair now, perhaps you should have made more efforts to makey your own provision over those forty years, instead of relying on the state to take care of you.

Interested_Taxpayer

Prof_as_was wrote: »

In the course of today's BBC radio news low-order running story about a TUC meeting to discuss co-ordinated anti-cuts action, there have been fleeting references to a 'delay of pension changes to June'. This might matter to the RPI/CPI issue, or ot might not. I cannot track down any more about this on web. Does anybody here know about this, and where the details are?

Great stuff, MEY (361)

Check out https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12304080 Things appear to be happening!

Yes excellent stuff, MEY

JohnB47

bendix.

I find your point of view interesting but I instinctively distrust your assertion that "It's that simple". The older I get, the more I discover that nothing in life is really that simple.

Then I realised that this argument is a bit one sided. You criticise public servants for their undeserved pension provision and say "There is not ONE part of my pension planning which has anything to do with the Government or RPI, nor anything to do with relying on government or anyone else for that matter."

Really? I can't think of any investments (property, shares etc) that are truly independant of any Government control, or "anyone else". No man is an island.

'Prof as was' has been open about his pension planning so, to make the argument more balanced, perhaps you could tell us the type of investments you've made over the years, so that we can see how truly independant they have been.

MEY_3

"Bendix" You, like some others before you on this forum, miss the point. You may well resent subsidising public sector pensions, but these are the pensions that were offered and were accepted by the recipients. The fact that modern pensions are moving to defined contribution is pretty meaningless in this debate, but originally most large schemes at least, were defined benefit schemes.
I don't know how you have earned your money or where you have invested it but do you not think that maybe in its own way your pension planning has effectively been subsidised by other people? Possibly by the expense of the goods or services you provided, by tax relief etc. You can get hot under the collar about this issue but taxpayers subsidising lousy politicians gets me hopping mad, together with profiteering energy companies etc. etc.
The state only "takes care of us" because they were/are our employer. This CPI change will also catch other, private, schemes tied to the relevant Parliamentary Acts of course.
The choice to accept your state pension is for you alone but don't you think even to some small degree you have earned it? Do you seriously believe the payment is some generous award made out of benevolence? I'd be willing to make a swap with HM Government. No pension but no NI contributions or tax in exchange. Seems fair to me. What do you say?

bendix

JohnB47 wrote: »

bendix.

I find your point of view interesting but I instinctively distrust your assertion that "It's that simple". The older I get, the more I discover that nothing in life is really that simple.

Then I realised that this argument is a bit one sided. You criticise public servants for their undeserved pension provision and say "There is not ONE part of my pension planning which has anything to do with the Government or RPI, nor anything to do with relying on government or anyone else for that matter."

Really? I can't think of any investments (property, shares etc) that are truly independant of any Government control. No man is an island.

'Prof as was' has been open about his pension planning so, to make the argument more balanced, perhaps you could tell us the type of investments you've made over the years, so that we can see how truly independant they have been.

Fair point. Obviously nothing is free of government interference - all investments are subject to all sorts of influences be they the impact on shares (indirectly) of government decisions, economic factors, population and demographic trends etc.

What I meant was that none of my pension planning will be subject to direct influences of government rethinks on pensions etc.

My planning is quite simple. I started thinking about it seriously over 15 years ago. I am currently 46.

The years 30-38 were focused solely on buying and paying the mortgage of a property, to give me the base. The years 38-45 were based on building - as quickly as possible - a substantional 'cash' pool outside of any pension wrappers. 75% of this is now in high interest rate term deposit accounts scattered around the world (I have lived in several countries, so have the rights to open account overseas). The balance is in S&S ISAs and other managed funds. I treat both as the basis of my pension planning from 50 onwards . . there is enough to generate enough income keep me happy in retirement. As the bulk of it is overseas, it's free from the political interference of HMG.

The years 46-50 are being devoted to two things - continuing to grow the cash pile, but less slowly because the magic of compounding interest it helping in that regard, AND putting together a private pension pot, but not one too big that I rely on it. My pension pot will simply be used as and when I need it (and obviously not before 55) to give myself a pay rise as my retirement progresses.

State pension? No thanks. Don't need it, and don't want it.

One final point: I won't be retiring in the UK. No way jose. I currently have an apartment in Bangkok, and I'm building a retirement house in Hua Hin.

The UK government can go to hell, so far as my retirement plans are concerned. I don't want anything from them, and I've done pretty much everything I can to ensure that the politically inspired moves that they arbitrarily come up with (both parties) have as small an impact on me as possible.

bendix

MEY wrote: »

"The choice to accept your state pension is for you alone but don't you think even to some small degree you have earned it? Do you seriously believe the payment is some generous award made out of benevolence? I'd be willing to make a swap with HM Government. No pension and NI contributions but no tax. Seems fair to me. What do you say?

Perhaps I've earned it, I don't know. The argument could be that I've paid my NI contributions and that I should get something back, but I don't want it.

And I won't need it. I'll have my own money, thank you.

I would find it morally reprehensible to take a payment from the government that I didnt need, irrespective of whether i put in for it.

I pay taxes. lots of them. I don't like it, but fair enough - it's the system. That doesn't mean that if I lost my job tomorrow I would automatically go on the dole. I wouldn't. Because I wouldn't need to.

The same applies to the state pension.

MEY_3

Well, let's hope that you never need your state pension. Good luck to you. Many are not so fortunate. Not everyone can pursue a career that provides enough to take them from cradle to grave whilst raising a family and living a life. That much is simple economics. Don't criticise those though that are only trying to defend what they were led to believe they were due, and won't lie down in the face of a huge confidence trick that purports to be about using an inflation measure that is more accurate when in reality it is about trying to cut government costs with the added benefit of diverting money to shareholders in many cases. If you want to blame previous governments for granting over-generous pensions that's another debate. It may be true, but maybe not upon closer examinataion, but that isn't ultimately what this current battle is about.

Ripoff_2

MORE ACTION REQUIRED so, perhaps some of you could take the essense of MEY's great letter and use it to point out the problem to the media, keep it as simple as possible, they don't like to report complicated issues. Use ALL the media outlets, local and national radio's and Newspapers. The message needs to be got out there, people still are unaware how this change will affect them.

Also, write to your MP again showing them why this change is not acceptable to you using MEY's letter as the basis, any doubting MP's will then have the arguments at their finger tips, so to speak, but your arguments this time not the Governments.

105 MP's have now signed the EDM, So sending your arguments to the one's who have yet to sign may just make them think again!!!

For BT pensioners there is a web site at https://sites.google.com/site/btpensionbetrayal/ that may be worth a look. If there is to be a concerted effort on this then this could be a rallying point? However, I am aware that the NFOP and OPA along with the CSPA are seeking legal advice from a Barrister, so things are moving on this issue but we don't always know about it.

It will take ALL of you to take action, don't leave it to someone else, spare the time and put pen to paper! I know many of you have already done so and WE all thank you for that but the fight has to continue, remember "WE are ALL in this together"