RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

MEY_3

DavidHayton wrote: »

Because the country is seriously broke. I don't think that they would be going from RPI to CPI if it cost money. All this nonsense about "better measures of inflation" is baloney, but because it can't be proved that it is boloney, politicians can hide behind it.


The government has decided that money needs to be saved. Off the top of my head, I can think of four ways of doing it:
(1) Increase pension contributions for those paying into the scheme (6.4% to 9.?% has been mooted).
(2) Increase the age at which the benefits of future contributions can be taken (is it 65, or 67, or ??)
(3) Change the benefits payable for each year's contributions (heck, if we aren't going to retire until 68 then we can change the scheme from an 80ths scheme to a 90th's scheme).
(4) Change the index from RPI to CPI

Now consider three people
(a) Alan the pensioner. He is not affected at all by (1) - (3), only (4).
(b) Billy the 42-year old. He will be affected by (1) - (3), but only on his future contributions. He is affected by (4)
(c) Charlie the 18-year old. All his contributions are affected by (1) - (3). he is affected by (4).

Now if idea (4) gets thrown out, then it will cost money, and that money will have to come from somewhere else. You may then well find that even more emphasis is placed on (1) - (3), with a further transfer of wealth from Charlie to Alan.

Sorry folks, I thought that the change from RPI to CPI was a masterstroke. How else could the current pensioners join in the pain? Because we are all in this together, you know!

David

David, I am truly astonished by your arguments. First of of all the proof of CPI being unsuitable is supported by the Royal Statistical Society quite vehemently.

As I have said before, there are many more apt folk to attack over their income before pensioners. Don't try to convince me of your arguments whilst such those in the banking sector are still getting extravagant bonuses, as one example.

Secondly this is a planned permanent change. It is bluster to try to pass this off as a result of the country being "seriously broke". This is an ideological change probably as a forerunner to hiving off more of the state sector. If it is about being broke then why not state that the change is for the duration of the crisis?

The indexing of pensions was introduced to help protect their value. Do you not think that the current absurdly and artificially low interest rates don't cause pain to those elderly folk who rely on their savings to top up their meagre pensions?

I really don't think you could have followed the debate on this forum. To counter your position so much would have to be repeated yet again.

teacher_retired

DavidHayton wrote: »

Alan will also have time to sort things out. RPI to CPI is a year-on-year change. Initally not much difference. If he is young enough and fit enough then he can go back to work until he is 68, or 70: like Charlie will have to. If he is older and unfit then the liklihood is that he won't have too many years to suffer the effects of the compounding difference.

David

Once the pension has been achieved by our children at the new pension age is it not reasonable that they then keep pace with the cost of living?
EDM 1032 seeks a discussion on how this can best be achieved before permanent changes are made. Is this really so unreasonable?

BoxerfanUK

DavidHayton wrote: »

If he is older and unfit then the liklihood is that he won't have too many years to suffer the effects of the compounding difference.David

Oh I see, so fingers crossed that his age and poor state of health catches up with him quickly so that he pops his clogs before having to suffer years of poverty and struggle.... and you reckon you aint a Tory!!!!!

Just unbelievable!!

DavidHayton

JamesU wrote: »

BoxerFan, Apology not accepted on my side. David has the right to debate objectively with reasons and is doing so. Think you should consider deleting post #860 as it is unjustified, and this post should then go to too. No point letting emotions blur judgement and all that...

JamesU

Thanks for your support, James, but I would like to apologise to all and sundry.

I do feel strongly about public sector pensions (I am paying into one!) but I also worry that we are expecting the younger members of the scheme to carry on paying into a scheme that will leave them with a far worse pension than we - older ones - will enjoy, or are already enjoying. It seems unfair and unjust.

The move from RPI to CPI is the only change that seriously affects the older ones. Even I, in my 40s, am largely unaffected by career average pensions (I'm at the top of the scale), and I can still look forward to a minimum of 20 years' contributions payable at 60, so I don't need to work until I drop.

Meanwhile the new entrants are being treated appallingly. They will need to pay more into the scheme, and receive less from it (when they are 67, or 68, or worse). Moreover, it is more difficult for them to top up their pensions because they are having to repay student debt, the likes of which we have never known.

However, in my posts, I have blurred the distinction between objectivity and irony to the point where I am not sure where I am being serious when I re-read my posts. So I have deleted them.

Sorry for any offence that I may have caused ... but it saddens me that there seems to be more fuss being made over the change from RPI to CPI, than the other changes that may not affect us - older ones - so much.

Best wishes to all,
David

Interested_Taxpayer

DavidHayton wrote: »

However, in my posts, I have blurred the distinction between objectivity and irony to the point where I am not sure where I am being serious when I re-read my posts. So I have deleted them.

Sorry for any offence that I may have caused ... but it saddens me that there seems to be more fuss being made over the change from RPI to CPI, than the other changes that may not affect us - older ones - so much.

Best wishes to all,
David

David
These are bad times for us all. It is not easy for anybody apart from the untrustworthy millionaires running this country and what they are trying to do for their friends. Take time to reflect about all of this and come back and join us once you have. I for one would welcome you if you do.

Old_Slaphead

JamesU wrote: »

BoxerFan, Apology not accepted on my side. David has the right to debate objectively with reasons and is doing so. Think you should consider deleting post #860 as it is unjustified, and this post should then go to too. No point letting emotions blur judgement and all that...
JamesU

There are a few bigoted posters on this thread that shun reasoned debate in favour of abusive & sometimes rude comments (I'll exclude MEY from that observation).

David's points seem IMO sensible - some of which I too have aired and been met with similar responses.

Most areas of society are suffering from Labour Government excesses which actively encouraged the bankers bonus bonanza in the naughties. Many 'innocent' parties will be expected to pay. I don't see why the very priviledged few who've benefited from the very best pension schemes (mostly in the public sector) shouldn't be expected to contribute too!

Right, the bodega should have opened by now......

Ripoff_2

All, I think David has opened up further debate and it is clear the frustration of some is coming to the surface. David is entitled to his opinions and he is entitled to say what he thinks. If you feel that some people need more pursuading as to why this change is wrong and why the EDM is not too much to ask, then please use the evidence to change their minds not harsh words because that does nothing for our arguments.

That said perhaps David and all who may agree with him might like to read the following http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmworpen/writev/pensions/m21.htm

This clearly puts the reasons and arguments to the Governmnet why this change is so wrong and does it far better than I can.

David, please do not walk away from this debate, your imput is valuable and perhaps if the following article happens to change your mind then maybe you will come back and tell us.

Regards

Ripoff

Goldwing1

Ripoff wrote: »

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmworpen/writev/pensions/m21.htm

Clear, concise, factual, true. Dare we hope for a glimmer of common from Government?

Goldwing1

I forgot to say,

I've also e-mailed the link to my MP, just so he knows I've not given up. :mad:

Haybob

I notice that there may be a contractual issue with pension members buying added years, commuting lump sums to pension etc, and this is often quoted when referring to a legal challenge. However I would have thought that many more thousands actively volunteered for early retirement from many of these schemes with the same expectation of receiving RPI inflation linking. Perhaps the CPSA should be made aware of these cases as well?