RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

bendix

RichandJ wrote: »

Then their Rules probably say something like this :

"deferred pension shall be increased......in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 to the 1993 Act.""

which I've lifted direct from an actual set of Rules. Which means they are legally obliged to use the Section 52a Order I mentioned above, which is based on CPI for retirements from 1-1-2011.

Any change in such a Rule would almost certainly require the consent of the sponsoring employer as it would have funding implications and, although this is my personal view, it is highly unlikely any employer at present is going to volunteer to pay extra money to a defined benefit pension scheme.

Your patiently explained points will, I'm afraid, fall on deaf ears.

This thread is only for those with a super-inflated sense of their entitlement and sense of injustice.

Ripoff_2

Many of you may be interested in the following web site http://www.unionstogether.org.uk

teacher_retired

teacher_retired wrote: »

An extremely good point and the main crux of my argument. I hope our union representatives push this hard.
Incidentally I do feel March 27th 2011 is going to be when the main union pressure starts

CORRECTION March 26th 2011. Apologies.

teacher_retired

Thicko2 wrote: »

Dear Old Slaphead

Please could you enlighten me how i am ill informed on funding issues on the NHS pension scheme?

Some facts below - perhaps i was misguided in that it is actually a £2bn contribution back to the treasury. What's the odd billion between friends and banks!

SOME FACTS ON THE NHSPS 2009
IN ENGLAND AND WALES
ACTIVE
RETIRED
DEFERRED
1.380m
610,000
476,000
EXPENDITURE
INCOME IN*
£5.625 billion
£7.780 billion

*Income includes employer /employee contributions

Very good to have these figures. I wonder if that particular contributor will concede on that point?

teacher_retired

RichandJ wrote: »

Then their Rules probably say something like this :

"deferred pension shall be increased......in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 to the 1993 Act.""

which I've lifted direct from an actual set of Rules. Which means they are legally obliged to use the Section 52a Order I mentioned above, which is based on CPI for retirements from 1-1-2011.

Any change in such a Rule would almost certainly require the consent of the sponsoring employer as it would have funding implications and, although this is my personal view, it is highly unlikely any employer at present is going to volunteer to pay extra money to a defined benefit pension scheme.

Very useful information. Does this affect pensions already in payment from many years earlier and did your schemes at that time specify rpi or cpi

Old_Slaphead

Thicko2 wrote: »

Dear Old Slaphead

Please could you enlighten me how i am ill informed on funding issues on the NHS pension scheme?

Some facts below - perhaps i was misguided in that it is actually a £2bn contribution back to the treasury. What's the odd billion between friends and banks!

SOME FACTS ON THE NHSPS 2009
IN ENGLAND AND WALES
ACTIVE
RETIRED
DEFERRED
1.380m
610,000
476,000
EXPENDITURE
INCOME IN*
£5.625 billion
£7.780 billion

*Income includes employer /employee contributions

You've shown the figures on a 'pay-as-you go' basis and taken no account of the hugely accruing liabilities resultant from the high recruitment and salary increases awarded in recent years. Each year the scheme accrues approx £18bn of employee pension rights of which around £7bn is offset by conributions - around 70% of which (ie £5bn) comes from taxpayer

Given that staffing levels have now probably peaked and, with austerity measures, will probably reduce in future years (thereby reducing members total contributions) -the increasing liability will have to be met predominantly by taxpayers but staff will be expected to pay higher charges and accept lower benefits to balance the books..

nb also note the huge year on year increase in overall scheme liabilities.


Extract from NHS 2010 Pension accounts....

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Scheme Funding and Liabilities[/FONT][/FONT]

As at 31 March 2010 the liabilities of the pension scheme were valued at £287.6 billion (31 March 2009 £199.5 billion). As the NHS Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme, these liabilities are underwritten by the Exchequer, which also funds the year on year difference between the scheme’s contribution income and the actuarially assessed growth in scheme liability, interest charges and other in-year increases in liability. In 2009-10 this net deficiency was £12.5 billion (2008-09 £13.4 billion) and is

detailed in the Combined Revenue Account of the following scheme accounts.

Interested_Taxpayer

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

You've shown the figures on a 'pay-as-you go' basis and taken no account of the hugely accruing liabilities resultant from the high recruitment and salary increases awarded in recent years. Each year the scheme accrues approx £18bn of employee pension rights of which around £7bn is offset by conributions - around 70% of which (ie £5bn) comes from taxpayer

Etc etc.

Just an attempt to get us off topic again.

If your MP has not signed up for EDM 1032. Take action NOW.

Your fellow current and ex public sector brothers and sisters and those in the private sector who will be shortly be robbed by this Libcon Government need you to ACT NOW.

Thicko2

Dear Old Slaphead

I think from your post you are acknowledging the fact that the NHS pension scheme is not currently a drain on public resources based on current expenditure - indeed it is contributing £2bn back to the treasurey. Based on historical perspective it might be time for NHS staff or NHS employees to ask for a contribution holiday!

I think you quite rightly are concerned about potential future liabilities and the risk structure around these. Assumed discount rates etc. As a general principle if we have overpaid in for the last few years should this be discounted?

I would draw your attention to the national audit office assessment the 2008 scheme changes - well worth a read. it is difficult to seperate the NHS scheme from the others but i think it is a fair assessment to identify the changes already in place has left us in a steady state in terms of overall GDP contribution, with further protection to the public purse from liabilities by capping employer rises at the expense of members. It is interesting the savings which are already planned to deliver from these changes.

The CPI/RPI debate is outside of this analysis and the debate i think on this thread is whether CPI is a more appropriate measure of inflation in pension age than RPI.

What we seem to be having is a government who has made this assessment based on no factual evidence and against all pronouncements that they made prior to the election, and the attempt to impact this on accrued rights.

in my mind it is bad politics, previous positions reneged and based upon levelling down and gaining wider public support due to their shafting by their employers and politics of envy and dislike of the state.

Interested_Taxpayer

Thicko2 wrote: »

Dear Old Slaphead

The CPI/RPI debate is outside of this analysis and the debate i think on this thread is whether CPI is a more appropriate measure of inflation in pension age than RPI.

What we seem to be having is a government who has made this assessment based on no factual evidence and against all pronouncements that they made prior to the election, and the attempt to impact this on accrued rights.

in my mind it is bad politics, previous positions reneged and based upon levelling down and gaining wider public support due to their shafting by their employers and politics of envy and dislike of the state.

A very warm welcome to the party.

Thicko2

Cheers interested taxpayer. This whole debate CPI vrs RPI is around principles and what is ethically right.

I of course can understand that future rights can of course be changed and accept that after due process. It is not what we signed up to or expect from existing rights, especially if you have already retired.

It is very stark if you asked for a CETV value from your pension provider reductions over the last 6 months and there is a 15% reduction in value.

My challenge to proponents of these proposals:

Can i have my CETV value based on RPI and commitment to 14% employer pension contribution for rest of career as a compromise to opt out - it is what you would have got from a private sector wind down plus an enhancement as well. The way the coalltion government is following policy i would probably accept this.