RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

bendix

MEY wrote: »

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?

Not really, sorry.

I don't understand the concept of a 'pension scheme' where increases are linked directly to RPI or CPI.

Such things are anathema and alien to me. My pension provision is based on accumulating pots of cash or other assets - cash savings there, a personal pension plan invested in shares here, an apartment there, some managed funds over there.

At some point in the future i will make decisions how to crystallise those assets and generate a life-sustaining / fulfilling income from them.

RPI or CPI come into it - of course it does. Those assets will generate an income which - logically - is related to inflation (by whatever measure) because let's face it asset value and income streams are causally related to inflation to a degree.

My challenge - and I'm happy accepting it - is to accumulate enough assets to generate enough income which allows a portion to be reinvested to that future income generation is inflation proof.

MEY_3

Okay Bendix. Let's leave it there. No point in pursuing this in terms of CPI and RPI if you don't understand the concept of that sort of inflation-proofing. Let's agree to differ.

bendix

MEY wrote: »

Okay Bendix. Let's leave it there. No point in pursuing this in terms of CPI and RPI if you don't understand the concept of that sort of inflation-proofing. Let's agree to differ.

Agreed

No point in discussing anything about concepts of individual responsibility to people who rely on the the largesse of some beneficient government (which, perversely, they inately are suspicious of) for their wellbeing.

MEY_3

See you want to continue Bendix. The issue is not about largesse or individual responsibility. I was hoping we could agree to disagree but realise now that it's not just a case of, "I don't understand the concept of a 'pension scheme' where increases are linked directly to RPI or CPI" that you don't understand. My intention was to drop this peaceably but I can see I'm wasting my time. Chunter on.

bendix

MEY wrote: »

Chunter on.

Happily.

Because this is a webforum on which views can be freely expressed. I fundamentally disagree with the stated aims of this thread for the reasons I've articulated.

If you want only supporting views, I suggest you set up your own 'by invitation' only website.

teacher_retired

I would like to return to the issue of honourable aggreements which is what the issue of accrued pensions is about.
I had an aggreement with my employer that for x% of my salary per year I would qualify for a pension 1/80th of my salary index linked to rpi.
I fulfilled my part of the aggreement surely it is honourable for my employer to honour theirs.

bendix

teacher_retired wrote: »

I would like to return to the issue of honourable aggreements which is what the issue of accrued pensions is about.
I had an aggreement with my employer that for x% of my salary per year I would qualify for a pension 1/80th of my salary index linked to rpi.
I fulfilled my part of the aggreement surely it is honourable for my employer to honour theirs.

Quite right. Except . . . .

Hundreds of thousands of people had more than 'honorable agreements' to keep their jobs with employers - they had employment contracts.

Sadly, the real world gets in the way of all these best intentions, and in this case the real world manifests itself in a dangerously high structural deficit which must be addressed.

When companies hit hard times, those agreements are ripped up and people lose their jobs or their benefits. When governments run out of money, then other things will be affected too.

It's the real world. Get used to it.

Old_Slaphead

teacher retired - I think you'll find that a 'honourable agreement', if there is such a term in law, is not legally binding.

Clearly your employer, in this case, is not being honourable (but then that's governments for you!).

I had an agreement that Equitable Life would look after my pension money & that the government regulator would ensure that they did so -- ho, ho, ho, how they must have laughed at my naivity !

Ripoff_2

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

teacher retired - I think you'll find that a 'honourable agreement', if there is such a term in law, is not legally binding.

Clearly your employer, in this case, is not being honourable (but then that's governments for you!).

I had an agreement that Equitable Life would look after my pension money & that the government regulator would ensure that they did so -- ho, ho, ho, how they must have laughed at my naivity !

Old Slaphead, I am really very sorry about yours and others treatment by Equitable Life, it was an act of betrayal and theft. You all have been badly wronged by Equitable Life and the regulator but two wrongs do not make a right.

You have had your pension stolen from you and you are right to be angry and so would I, I would be very angry. This indexing issue is also going to cause people to be stolen from because they like you thought or should I say believed and trusted in an agreement.

They were told more than once that indexing was at RPI, they were never told that the Government could just come along and change the indexing to a lesser measure. So the feeling of betrayal is the same as yours the only difference is that we are fighting to stop the change before we are robbed, which unfortunately you did not have the chance to do. You were robbed and betrayed before you knew about it. We are trying to stop the same injustice happening to us but only because we are aware of it.

We should be on the same side fighting injustice wherever that may be!

Loughton_Monkey

teacher_retired wrote: »

I would like to return to the issue of honourable aggreements which is what the issue of accrued pensions is about.
I had an aggreement with my employer that for x% of my salary per year I would qualify for a pension 1/80th of my salary index linked to rpi.
I fulfilled my part of the aggreement surely it is honourable for my employer to honour theirs.

This could easily be sorted. Your employer provides you with remuneration in several forms, not least of which is salary and pension rights.

There is no agreement (honourable or not) to provide specific amounts of pay rises for the rest of your working life.

As a tax payer, I would be reasonably comfortable with the idea that every year, from now on, that any agreed increase in remuneration each year be offered on a more flexible basis.

You would be informed of this year's 'extra' being awarded, and you would be quoted how much of the total would need to be added to give you an extra 80th RPI linked, and how much to give you an extra 80th CPI linked. The remaining amount (after your decision) would be added to your salary.

When you retire, you could choose initial pension RPI linked, or higher initial pension CPI linked. Up to you.

What could be fairer than that?