RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

2010

I thought this government promise to scrap any pension increase relating to rpi/cpi and restore it to average earnings which it used to be before Thatcher (a tory) took it away.

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead",
As I made the original "charge" against you, let me enter the fray. If you read the Telegraph link it would seem that Mr. King has benefited by some curious move by his employers. It must be odd for the Telegarph to raise such questions!
As for my original remark to you, it was designed as a response to your attitude to what you describe as "gold plated" pensions. The King example above demonstrates that even in these times of constraint there is one rule for the goose and another for the gander, so to speak. The difference is that no RPI/CPI pensioners are requesting anything more than that to which they had every reason to believe were the terms on which their pension was offered. No one from the government came to them and tried to negotiate a temporary reduction in their expectations due to the problems the country faces. Mr. King however, is busy telling everyone how hard it is likely to get for us all and that we should accept it whilst at the same he is receiving an additional benefit that is very questionable in its rationale (a form of creative accounting?) and funded by us taxpayers. If you cannot see the difference between the two situations I am flabbergasted. And as King's pension scheme is presumably relatively new I think there is every chance uplifts will be linked to RPI, but I am in agreement with you when say he's probably not bothered.

Old_Slaphead

I concur with your views that Mr King's pension arrangements are somewhat controversial given the current austerity situation and clearly need some explanation and/or justification.

I simply do not see that how it relates to your specific cause any more than the circumstances of pension holders in general for the past decade - so I'm unsure about why Ripoff is bringiing it into the thread unless he has specific evidence that King will benefit from something (ie RPI indexing) that's being specifically excluded from others.

BTW I fully understand your positioning on the RPI/CPI issue so you don't need to reexplain, to me anyway, although I don't agree with it. You made the point about jealousy - that's not the case. Simply fair treatment for all including those who will ultimately have to pay the bills (especially on public pension costs which will lead to reduced employment levels and reduced services for the needy).

Anyway, I'll go back into hibernation now and leave your thread for the purpose intended.

StevieJ

2010 wrote: »

I thought this government promise to scrap any pension increase relating to rpi/cpi and restore it to average earnings which it used to be before Thatcher (a tory) took it away.

Triple lock, the higher of 2.5% or CPI or average earnings, could still work out worse than RPI though.

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead",

Well, I suppose Mr. King may have RPI in his pensions contract but also I would imagine "Ripoff" was trying to illustrate that the "we are all in this together" argument is simply untrue. There may be pension scheme members out there who feel that they'll take the RPI/CPI hit as we are all in the same boat, having to tighten our belts. That's something that's inherent in the British nature, I'd say. If that is the case they need to be made aware that we are NOT all in the same boat. Under those circumstances I think it is fair comment, especially as Mr. King is very closely related to the whole issue if not the direct instigator of it.

As for public pensioners costs leading to reduced employment levels I'd say it is the government that are reducing employment precisely by cutting public services, but I think I know what you are really meaning. Remember though; RPI/CPI is not public pension reform. It is the usual, dare I say, Tory tactic of hitting the weakest, softest target (in terms of benefit recipients and pensioners, who have no easy means of reprisal) rather than having the guts to tackle the issue that really peeves them.

Don't know if you'll read this if you are now hibernating again!

BoxerfanUK

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

When I expressed similar distaste of the current pension 'apartheid' ie. gold-plated schemes vs the rest I was admonished thus

Hmmmm, well there's 'gold plated'....... and there's 'GOLD PLATED'. The latter being in Mr Kings £198,000 per annum pension compared to an average Joe's public sector 'gold plated' pension of around 5 - 6K per year..... Not exactly in the same league are they Old Slaphead, but hey, you carry on tarring all public servants with the same brush. We're all in this together aren't we!!!!!

teacher_retired

This is the area that the government I suspect fears the most because all peoples unions can strike on this issue legally since it affects so many from leading senior civil servants to those working for the councils to teachers etc. Sadly those of us who are already retired are in a very weak position and must rely on current workers to defend accrued pensions.
I do hope at least one union will make a legal challenge to the cpi rpi change to those with accrued pensions for it needs to be brought to the publics attention. Many members of the public are unaware of what is going on.
My reply to those questionning this issue is basically what is a contract or agreement. I believe it is when two parties discuss and agree a deal sign it or preferably shake hands. It should then be honoured.
Many years ago when I started teaching I was given the teachers supperanuation scheme. The deal was if I paid x% of my annual salary I would receive 1/80th of my final salary as pension. Year after year this was presented to me and as the years accrued my pension grew. In every copy of this scheme it stated clearly that the pension would be linked to rpi. For the government now to change this means they are breaking their side of the bargain and that I feel is wrong both morally and I hope legally.
Of course the government can say future money being paid into the scheme may have changed terms - that is for negotiation between them and the appropriate employee representatives. However agreements already reached ie accrued rights should be honoured at the very least.
A contract is a contract. An agreement is an agreement and should be honoured.

MEY_3

"Teacher Retired"
We are in a weak position as regards not being able to our withdraw labour, and because we are barely an organised bunch (as yet), but we do have one "strength". Unlike our pensioner funds friends who have current jobs and the like to consider, we cannot be blackmailed into staying silent or prevented from allying with any faction fighting this fight. Keep pressuring all those that can help have a say in this!
I'd also like to record here that I still have yet to receive a reply from Rachel Reeve, (Shadow Pensions) or Mr. Ed Miliband as to why they think more Labour M.P.s have not signed EDM 1032. Will keep you all posted on this.
I have had a second, form reply from the DWP which I will probably reproduce on this site shortly. This time it is appropriate if not enlightening.

Interested_Taxpayer

teacher_retired wrote: »

Year after year this was presented to me and as the years accrued my pension grew. In every copy of this scheme it stated clearly that the pension would be linked to rpi. For the government now to change this means they are breaking their side of the bargain and that I feel is wrong both morally and I hope legally.
Of course the government can say future money being paid into the scheme may have changed terms - that is for negotiation between them and the appropriate employee representatives. However agreements already reached ie accrued rights should be honoured at the very least.
A contract is a contract. An agreement is an agreement and should be honoured.

Very well said. Welcome to the fight

Old_Slaphead

Good luck guys - you'll need it if our experiences with Equitable Life are anything to go by (which gleaned much more MPs support - 337 signed the EDM) !

BoxerfanUK - on #387 the term "gold plated" relates to pension benefits available (ie index linking, early retirement, heavy employer subsidy, final rather than average salary calculation, guaranteed benefits rather than stockmarket-related, etc etc) not the actual cash sums paid out.

(FWIW the 'average' you use on your example only relates to only 9 years accrual at average payrate - but, I grant you, still substantially less than Mr King). As for your comment on 'we're all in this together' well private pensioners have been shafted far more than public ones ever will be so clearly that's not the case.