RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Goldwing1

This bickering isn't getting anyone anywhere.

The simple fact is that if we win the day with EDM1032 there will be those who are happy because our pensions are preserved and those who are not - probably because they don't have this sort of pension (Other reasons may apply).

So I suggest that those of who want EDM1032 to suceed focus on getting those signatures. Focus people.

Ripoff_2

ALL, please stop being disrespectful to each other and please keep these posts civilized and to the subject matter EDM 1032.

Sometimes people have to agree to differ and on this subject people will have different opinions but in the end what matters is that we can have a civilzed debate around them, not a slanging match.

So far 106 MP's have signed EDM 1032

LAB = 86 LD = 6 CON = 0 Oth = 16

Focus on getting more MP's to sign

MEY_3

Bendix, you spout so much tripe that I have to answer with long replies. Sorry if it challenges your ability to concentrate.

Quote from you: "I don't know if you've noticed but tax rates have gone up, VAT has gone up, benefits are being cut." Then you accuse me of repeating it! I assumed you meant in real terms. Perhaps if you had made your post a tad longer to explain what you meant there wouldn't be a misunderstanding? What did you mean exactly?

Repeat: Pensioners may be paying income tax too. And forgive me. I didn't notice anyone saying a change to CPI was a temporary measure related to the deficit. In fact, I haven't seen any government official say that it is anything but moving to a more appropriate index. Not a money saving measure. You have made that assumption I suggest, but I have suspicions as to that being the case. That seems to be the extent on which your arguments rest.
I agree with the government spending issue to some extent. A serial government problem across the globe. It's how they work. But don't pretend that the banks have not played their part. Maybe we were on a doomed path but, boy, did they not accellerate it!
Irrespective of below true inflation increases do you not think pensioners are sharing rising costs? I rather think it is not a case of pensioners feeling lucky but others being "unlucky".
As for your later comments about the Labour government buying popularity seems to me that is what Mrs T. did when selling council houses to get power and being the architect of the current housing mess. But let us not stray. Nor forget that in many respects the Labour Govt. was only continuing the bankrupt policies of the previous Tory governments.
Your blather about relying on the state and governments further on shows how divorced from reality you are. You are as much at the mercy of any government or state as anyone.
Let's hope that no Thai government or indeed any other, siezes your assets at any time, eh! It can happen if people don't resist. No person or place is ever immune, however much you think you have things sown up.
As a final point though. If a pension scheme is tied to RPI specifically do you feel to "share the pain" they too should voluntarily move to CPI? Or do you feel good luck to them?

Old_Slaphead

Ripoff - suppose you get say another 50 MPs signed up. What happens then ? Is it correct that even with these numbers Parliament is extremely unlikely to debate the issue ?

nb this is not sneering at your efforts - I'm just trying to understand the constitutional purpose and gravitas of an EDM.

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

I am not sure about that, surely you are at the whim of the markets, oh and tax relief, that govt handout

As Ive said before, there is always an element of being subject to external influences. Of course there is.

For me, the aim is to minimise the potential for my plans to go awry based on arbitrary political decisions - for good or bad reasons - by government.

Markets? Well the markets are the markets. I'm fine for them to shape and influence my future, within reason. But Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron or Nick Clegg? No chance.

bendix

MEY wrote: »

Let's hope that no Thai government or indeed any other, siezes your assets at any time, eh! It can happen if people don't resist. No person or place is ever immune, however much you think you have things sown up.
As a final point though. If a pension scheme is tied to RPI specifically do you feel to "share the pain" they too should voluntarily move to CPI? Or do you feel good luck to them?

Pure hyperbole. Your assets are not being seized. Instead, your pension is going to be increased, say, 4% instead of 5%.

But you're right. Noone is entirely immune. Surely, though, the secret of an independent life is one that minimises such risks by assuming the responsibility for themselves. If you put all your eggs in one basket - ie, rely on the government for your pension provision - then you can't rely complain about the impact of changes in government policy affecting you significantly. It's the trade off you made for abnegating the responsibility for your pension to an outside entity, in this case HMG.

Surely history has shown us that governments change policies at their whim. You should know this. you're not stupid.

As for your final point, sorry but I don't understand the question. Frankly, I'd be delighted with any pay rise in this economic climate, be it CPI, RPI or anything.

MEY_3

"Old Slaphead"

Quote: My reply in navy. "Then let me repeat my reasoning again.....

(a) It's unaffordable to virtually all schemes that are not underwritten by the taxpayer. With a regressive tax system that means ultimately the poorest will end up paying.

Was it always thus? The poorest are always going to be worse off no matter what unless benefits are better targetted. There are two issues here. Pensions in the future, pensions in payment or deferred. If there is a need to re-align pension schemes to reflect more balance that's as maybe. It should still not use a measure that is more inaccurate as an inflation proofer though, if it is designed to be inflation proofed. That shouldn't be a matter of political expedience. Perhaps the answer is to abolish private pensions entirely if they cannot deliver inflation proofing. Perhaps that is where the real weakness lies. Then pensions could be uprated equally by a measure that the country can afford.

(b) It's not your legal entitlement.

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you talking about index linking or RPI ?

(c) If you moved to a scheme indexing of say RPI+10% and that were also applied to all wages, benefits, pensions etc -would you really be any better off in the long run? Ergo, if a low inflation factor is applied to all wage related costs then that has to benefit everyone in the long run ESPECIALLY the low paid/pensioned.

The gist of your argument seems to be that unless everyone gets equal inflation protection it is unfair. That isn't really what the debate is about. If everything in financial life were fair the landscape would be very different. Low/no inflation would be good for everyone but that isn't what we are discussing nor is it likely to happen except in fairyland however noble a cause. What is happening is the government are pretending inflation is lower than in reality and by moving to an even more inaccurate index saving money - though not having the guts to say so, nor are they doing it temporarily to combat a particular problem.

(d) The RPI/CPI difference effect on the average & lower DB pension scheme member will be minimal (ie it will, over 20 years, be less than the cost of withdrawal of winter fuel allowance).
Firstly who says winter fuel allowances will be maintained or stay in line with fuel costs? Second why is this just about the lower end of the pension scale? Third, your estimation if accurate, only applies to the average if correct. Why? Four, what is wrong with using an inflation linking that accurately portrays inflation. I'm all for changing it to really reflect inflation.

(e) Over 80% of MPs don't agree with you - and that's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

I suggest it is because the current lot don't for ideological reasons and the other lot because they actually contemplated doing the same thing to cover the mess they were in. I don't think MPs are the measure of truth, decency, honesty or fair play, do you?

MEY_3

Not hyperbole Bendix. Just making the point that we are at the mercy of governments and markets as you point out, anywhere. I wasn't directly comparing the value of the loss of assets with pension increases, but I don't think that it is asking a lot for a government to use an inflation measure that measures personal inflation when uprating pensions when that was what index linking is intended to do. That is all we are asking. If your company did give you a pay rise would you turn it down to help share the pain? I doubt it, and why should you.

I'm sure we could have a fascinating debate over the ethics of trust and responsibility another time and another place. You talk of placing faith in governments. That is true of markets too. But what are the alternative? Assets. That brings us to other moral questions - well outside the scope of this thread.
My last question was pretty self-explanatory I thought. If a pension scheme exists where increases are linked directly to RPI do you think that scheme should move to CPI indexing voluntarily to bear in the burden of the current economic climate or do you think the scheme is entitled to do as it wishes? Is that any clearer?

Old_Slaphead

MEY - you asked for my reasons and I've given them. Can't see any purpose of debating each item , ad nauseum (unless you wish me to do so).

I was however amused with your response to (e) whereby because those democratically elected representitives with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, haven't signed up 'en masse' it's because they're not truthful, decent or honest.

Says a great deal for our political system doesn't it (BTW I do actually agree on this)

MEY_3

No. I don't want to debate it endlessly actually. The issue is pretty clear cut at a nitty gritty level. Think the country as whole feel pretty much the same way about politicians. They are all just opportunists. Probably why no party could get a majority.