RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Old_Slaphead

Ripoff wrote: »

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.

I suggest you go back and check your figures.

After 40 years all public sector staff in the pension scheme receive between (a) 50% of salary + 3x annual pension as a tax free lump sum and (b) 67% of salary.

For an average public sector wage that's (a) £12,500pa + £37,500 taxfree and (b) £16,666pa.

A few ie police, MPs do even better!

The often lower quoted 'averages' are distorted due to staff accruing less than 40 years service and part-time workers.

Given that employees contribute about 20% of the total cost of their pension and taxpayer maker up the other 80% then there's no other description but 'generous'. Virtually no-one outside of an FS scheme gets anything like as much as that (directors 'top hat schemes may be the exception - but not many get those)

I am sure you would not begrudge the forces and the widows their pensions, they have sacrificed so much for you and I

It's easy to cherry-pick deserving cases. At the other end of the scale yesterday I had a CV from a "Shared Services Facilitator" (!!!!!!??????) in local government. If that guy had made it to 60, he'd have been picking up a £40,000pa pension for around 25 years ie a total £1million benefit.

pqrdef

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Given that employees contribute about 20% of the total cost of their pension and taxpayer maker up the other 80% then there's no other description but 'generous'.

This distinction between employer and employee contributions is totally disingenuous. The money all comes from the same source (which isn't always the taxpayer).

Private-sector pensions could easily be more 'generous' if employees wished. But if they're given a choice between a pay rise and a more generous pension, they'll always take the pay rise.

Public-sector employees don't get that choice, because the employers use underfunded pension promises to save money. And when the chickens come home to roost, the government can always renege on its promises, because that's what governments do. They have a legislature to unilaterally rewrite their obligations at will.

Logically the next trick is to change the basis of indexation of index-linked gilts. After all, the main customers are pension funds, and they don't need RPI linking any longer. Nobody will be surprised if new CPI-linked gilts appear. But the fun will really start if they muck about with RPI-linked gilts already issued. Or are there some things they can't do?

Old_Slaphead

pqrdef wrote: »

Private-sector pensions could easily be more 'generous' if employees wished. But if they're given a choice between a pay rise and a more generous pension, they'll always take the pay rise.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Private sector employees be virtually no choice as employers are falling over themselves to close schemes. If there's an employer contribution I would have thought that the majority of older workers would opt for the pension. That's certainly my limited experience. Younger workers may have different priorities.

These days the majority of private employers appear offer very little - probably due to the onerous cost and competitive pricing pressures.

Andy_L

Ripoff wrote: »

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.

It's a meaningless average for comparison though as it includes those who spent 2 years & then left as well as those who got the full 40 years service in.

Sobraon

Done, thanks.

JohnB47

Done, thanks.

People might want to make use of a site called 'writetothem' that helps you to locate and write to your MP. I found it by Google searching for "Write to your MP". (I'm not allowed to post a link to the site)

I have no connection with the site - I simply found it on Google.

Good Luck.

JamesU

JohnB47 wrote: »

People might want to make use of a site called 'writetothem' that helps you to locate and write to your MP.

John, this is a very good link. Just tried it myself, and it seems to be a very fast and easy way to send comments, or ask questions, to relevant councillors, MP, MEP etc, just by plugging in your postcode. One note: this is e-mail rather than a formal letter though.

The link you wanted to post is here:

http://www.writetothem.com/

JamesU

mjm3346

JamesU wrote: »

John, this is a very good link. Just tried it myself, and it seems to be a very fast and easy way to send comments, or ask questions, to relevant councillors, MP, MEP etc, just by plugging in your postcode. One note: this is e-mail rather than a formal letter though.

The link you wanted to post is here:

http://www.writetothem.com/

JamesU

From the same people to keep tabs on your MP

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/


and for Freedom of Information requests

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Ripoff_2

Some of you may be interested in the following website nfop.org.uk, especially BT pensioners and for non BT there is also cspa.co.uk both provide very good information on the subject.

shaunrc

Just as an add on to this debate I am an economist who has also been an IFA. I joined the original debate on here about the change in pension indexation from the RPI measure to CPI. I write on inflation often as it is one of my specialist areas. For example I wrote recently about the downgrade to our producer price inflation numbers.

Anyway I wrote on Friday the 19th of November with some thoughts on the "Silver RPI" constructed by Age UK. The reason for this is that it takes retirees experience of inflation even further away from the Government's CPI measure. I do not agree entirely with the research but it is a further criticism of the justification behind the move to change pensions indexation.For those interested my thoughts can be read on http://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com