Ask the Pensions Minister about the future of pensions

chinchin2010

Why are you encouraging private sector employers to renege on their promises and avoid their obligations by linking company pensions to CPI instead of the consistently higher RPI?

RPI currently stands at 4.5%, and CPI at 3.2%. Age UK has researched the true inflation figure for retired people, and found that it is RPI plus 3.3%, namely 7.8%.

Your actions are condemning tens of millions of people to poverty in old age. Two further questions :

1) Are you proud of yourself?

2) Do you seriously think anybody is going to vote for you in future?

Linton

chinchin2010 wrote: »

Why are you encouraging private sector employers to renege on their promises and avoid their obligations by linking company pensions to CPI instead of the consistently higher RPI?

RPI currently stands at 4.5%, and CPI at 3.2%. Age UK has researched the true inflation figure for retired people, and found that it is RPI plus 3.3%, namely 7.8%.

Your actions are condemning tens of millions of people to poverty in old age. Two further questions :

1) Are you proud of yourself?

2) Do you seriously think anybody is going to vote for you in future?

These figures on an inflation index for old people are IMHO (and experience) nonsense. I retired 5 years ago, and keep detailed records of my expenditure. In the past 5 years my expenditure on basics (food, utilities, insurance etc) has increased by below 2% annually.

Difficult to say more precisely as the total change over 5 years is within the random annual fluctuation.

In the same period the average annual CPI increase is about 2.8%.

Perhaps people who are complaining could publish their actual figures - their complaints would have more force if they did.

dunstonh

because my wife was born in sept 1954 she lost out in the last pensions review by having almst 5 years added to her retirement date.
she now finds that your proposal to increase the retirement age again will add another year just because she was born 2 days too early.
why have women of this specific age been targetted and why do you think they are better placed than women a month younger to cope with losing out in this way.

Shouldn't your wife asked her MP back in 1993-95 as to why it was raised to 65?
Although its well documented that equalisation was required with men to avoid discrimination.

Most people, men and women are seeing their state retirement age increase. She is not being singled out.

2) Do you seriously think anybody is going to vote for you in future?

When you look at the alternatives, who else are you going to vote for?

A number of the pension proposals are actually very good and include simplification and more control being handed to the individual. One thing that has impressed me so far with the coalition is the radical thinking. Something I didnt expect.

rjmzoom

Hi,

Please ask the minister to justify his decision to use CPI rather than RPI for the revaluation of company pensions in deferment.

As you know, those of us that work outside the civil service lost our right to final salary schemes years ago. As a result, our existing benefit is locked down and revalued every year to ensure it keeps up with inflation. The statuary minimum measure of inflation is currently RPI.

Yet, this month the minister is due to use CPI for that revaluation figure. The minister thinks that CPI better represents the inflation experience of people (actually he probably doesn't think that, but it's a great way of instantly wiping billions off the deficits of company and state pension schemes). The big problem with that is that CPI does not include housing costs, which is a major contributor to real-life inflation.

This change to CPI is going to wipe millions off the countries future pensions and is the next big stealth tax to face company pension schemes since Gordon Browns last raid on the pension system.

Cheers...

Marco1

Is the minister happy about changing the annual increases in occupational pensions from RPI to CPI. These pensioners have contributed all their working lifes for to qualify for a defined benefit pension which once obtained cannot be changed by recipient. They now find that the present government is about to change the goalposts. Can this be right ?.

welsh_wizard_3

Is it fair that the care allowance paid to my wife for our disabled son is deducted from my state pension ?

davan

About 35 years ago I tried to take out a private pension but it was illegal unles you were self employed. It was some years till the government allowed you to have your own pension.
This is why a lot of us 'oldies' do not have pesions or very inadiquat ones.
I belive the answere is simple, as firms pensions are unreliable (they either do not pay into them or absconed with the money) anyone starting work at 16 or over ; takes out their own pension plan.
This is theirs and they have to pay a minimum into it, then the firm they work for also has to pay a minimun or an agreed set amount into this pension plan.
If the person moves to another company or is not working for some reason, the plan goes with them to the other firm.
This way there is only one pension plan and not several silly ones should the person have numerous jobs during their working life.
They can also choose when to take retirement.

dunstonh

About 35 years ago I tried to take out a private pension but it was illegal unles you were self employed.

Personal pensions didnt come in until 1988 but prior to that you had section 226 retirement annuity contracts. They were available to the self employed and the employed who did not have an occupational scheme running.

This is why a lot of us 'oldies' do not have pesions or very inadiquat ones.

Its not a valid reason though. You could have had a S226 RAC. Or you could have built up personal savings using suitable products of the era.

I belive the answere is simple, as firms pensions are unreliable (they either do not pay into them or absconed with the money) takes out their own pension plan

That is not correct. The Mirror group was a high profile example from some decades back which led to a range of changes and protections put in place to stop that from happening.

This is theirs and they have to pay a minimum into it, then the firm they work for also has to pay a minimun or an agreed set amount into this pension plan.

Logistical nightmare and damned expensive for all but the smallest firms.

JW19

dunstonh wrote: »

Shouldn't your wife asked her MP back in 1993-95 as to why it was raised to 65?
Although its well documented that equalisation was required with men to avoid discrimination.

Most people, men and women are seeing their state retirement age increase. She is not being singled out.




When you look at the alternatives, who else are you going to vote for?

A number of the pension proposals are actually very good and include simplification and more control being handed to the individual. One thing that has impressed me so far with the coalition is the radical thinking. Something I didnt expect.

Women born in 1954 feel particularly singled out. We reluctantly accepted the principle of equalisation with men but we have now had this further accelerated at a speed which would cause an outcry if this was happening to men. There is now a six year difference in pension age for women born only four years apart and even worse, over a three year difference for women born only a year and a day apart between 5th April 1953 and 6th April 1954. The government changed their minds on raising the pension age for men by a year from 2016 because it didn't give them enough time to prepare but suddenly its OK to raise my pension age and others similarly affected by another 23 months on top of the four years plus increase we have already had! It is a scandalous ludicrous anomaly and should be amended urgently before it becomes law.

chris_m

JW19 wrote: »

We reluctantly accepted the principle of equalisation with men

Reluctantly? You mean all the campaigning for equality over the years was only for equality when it suits?
;);)