RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

Andy_L

Thicko2 wrote: »

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!

ermm, that £2bn back to the treasury came from the treasury (& thus the tax payer) in the first place.

Employers contributions in unfunded schemes are an accounting convience so the employer appreciates the true(ish) cost of their staff when making dicisions on staff vs, eg, machinery or contracting out work

pjala

Andy_L wrote: »

ermm, that £2bn back to the treasury came from the treasury (& thus the tax payer) in the first place.

Employers contributions in unfunded schemes are an accounting convience so the employer appreciates the true(ish) cost of their staff when making dicisions on staff vs, eg, machinery or contracting out work

Nah, not really. You will find the people paid for that money out of their earnings for working for a living by treating sick people.

You might as well say wages are an accounting trick, so that employers appreciate the cost of staff. Bizarrre.

Thicko2

I dont think we are so dumb not to realise the NHS is a public sector funded health scheme. The point is that these levels of contributions have been capped going forwards.

The bigger question in a modern society is such a level the right amount to expect from employers to contribute towards pensions schemes versus pay and other renumeration, pension holidays etc.

RichandJ

teacher_retired wrote: »

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

The answer is I'm afraid, whatever is in the Rules of a scheme. If, as in my previous posts, Rules specifically mention RPI for increases to pension in payment then that is what increases have been and will continue to be based on. Unless the sponsoring employer & Trustees propose a Rule change, which at present will trigger consultation.

If Rules refer to the legislation, which I understand is the position with certain public sector & ex-public sector schemes, then they will have to use whatever the legislation says.

Andy_L

pjala wrote: »

Nah, not really. You will find the people paid for that money out of their earnings for working for a living by treating sick people.

You might as well say wages are an accounting trick, so that employers appreciate the cost of staff. Bizarrre.

Yes, really.

If there were no employers contributions (~3x the employees contributions) and the pensions were paid directly by the treasury there would be no difference in the cost (to the tax payer) of providing them. However in that case the NHS etc would not see the cost of the pensions in its accounts and so the cost of employing its staff (ie salary, training, pension, office overheads etc) would apper to them to be about 15% lower than it actually is.

This would distort cost-benefit considerations for, eg, deciding whether to employe more staff or buy newer machines to make existing staff more productive (as the NHS budget would see the true cost of machinery but not staff)

teacher_retired

Thicko2 wrote: »

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.

A brilliant proposition I'll go along with that. Thanks.

Ripoff_2

London: lobby parliament against pensions switch to CPI

Tue 01 Mar 2011
Lobby parliament against the switch from RPI to CPI. Prospect is supporting this lobby organised by the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance. 11.30am-4pm. Details to come soon on this website and the


Details from http://www.prospect.org.uk/news/cutstop/diary?_ts=1

teacher_retired

Ripoff wrote: »

London: lobby parliament against pensions switch to CPI

Tue 01 Mar 2011
Lobby parliament against the switch from RPI to CPI. Prospect is supporting this lobby organised by the Civil Service Pensioners Alliance. 11.30am-4pm. Details to come soon on this website and the


Details from http://www.prospect.org.uk/news/cutstop/diary?_ts=1

Thanks. Good to see things are moving at last I understand from this site as well as others that the legal position is being closely studied with a view to a legal challenge as soon as the legislation is laid before the house.
Incidentally do they need to get the change through the house before they can start paying the lower rate in April? Does anyone know?
Anyone know the labour party view on this?

Ripoff_2

teacher_retired wrote: »

Thanks. Good to see things are moving at last I understand from this site as well as others that the legal position is being closely studied with a view to a legal challenge as soon as the legislation is laid before the house.
Incidentally do they need to get the change through the house before they can start paying the lower rate in April? Does anyone know?
Anyone know the labour party view on this?

As I now understand it. The change will go through Parliament otherwise no payment to any benefits or pensions can be paid and once schemes enact the change, then depending on the scheme rules it depends on what the increase will be either 3.1% CPI or 4.6% RPI as of September 2010.

This is when legal actions can be considered not only against the Government but also against the pension schemes, depending on how they apply the rules. This is when it gets really complicated but in the end they have to do the WRONG thing first before the legal challenge to make them do the RIGHT thing can be considered.

As I understand it, The Labour Party at the moment are against this change but would consider an amendment that limited it to a MAX of this Parliament, then back to RPI. Not ideal but at least it's better than for LIFE as it is now. The Government are just pressing ahead regardless!

Ripoff_2

Big day Thursday Feb 10th TUC Unions discussing RPI to CPI (From Twitter) @Ripoff_pensions