http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535

fwor

Meeper wrote: »

almost EVERY other item which utilises inflation is based around CPI

What utter rubbish. The CPI was created as an artificial construct to try to make it easier to compare inflation in different countries. The fact that certain things are excluded from it has nothing to do with the costs incurred by pensioners.

Where ~prices~ are regulated, what measure of inflation do they use? For example, train fares? They use RPI.

I would have been happy if the government had consulted with experts on inflation and the economy, and had selected a measure other than RPI which had been designed to reflect the actual inflation rate experienced by the "average" pensioner. But they didn't do that.

Instead they have put in place a scheme that systematically devalues a person's pension on a yearly basis for the rest of their life.

JohnB47

And remember, MPs and members of the Bank of England retain RPI as the uprating index for their pensions. So it's only the plebs that have to pay for the recession.

Still, what's the point of being in a position of power without using it to improve your own standard of living compared to those less powerful.

Koicarp

Wasn't this Lord Hutton's idea?

BobQ

Meeper wrote: »

It often amazes me why the general public feel more able to make decisions about things like this than the civil servants who are trained in economics, fiscal policy, and so on..

Incorrect. Most civil servants are not trained in these disciplines.

Meeper wrote: »

I'll break it down in simple terms: The change from RPI to CPI is happening because, in a nutshell, almost EVERY other item which utilises inflation is based around CPI, and if pensions continue to use RPI inflation the country will go bust.

Incorrect. Its happening because the the Government is reneging on a promise. I have a preserved civil service pension from 30 years ago. My pension benefits were earned on the basis they would be paid next year having been index linked since then and into the future.

At the time and the deal was that it would be indexed to ".....the increase in prices (RPI)." This was a lie. They never mentioned CPI which had not been invented.THey never said that it would be indexed against some prices and not others or that housing was excluded.

Meeper wrote: »

So no, I don't think I'll be signing your petition, and even if it gets to the required 100,000 signatures to spark a debate in the House, it won't make any difference because the debates have already happened in the House and it has gone through there.

It will become an issue before the next election. First because the change was not in either party's manifesto and secondly it affects not only current public sector workers but also those who have already retired or have preserved pensions.

Meeper

BobQ wrote: »

Incorrect. Most civil servants are not trained in these disciplines.

Obviously. But the ones who work in that particular department and have to be so most certainly are.

As to the rest of your post, regarding lies and reneging on promises, let's consider:

Would you rather the rules changed, or would you rather the cost of the pension scheme remained unaffordable and put the economy in general in further danger?

fwor

So you're an Independent Financial Advisor, but you can't justify the statement that you made earlier in this thread that "almost EVERY other item which utilises inflation is based around CPI"?

I would be very reluctant to take financial advice from you if I knew that.

You don't seem to realise that it's not a matter of the RPI indexing being "unaffordable". The idea behind indexing is to make sure that pensioners keep up with price rises - and nothing more.

The government seems quite happy to carry out this raid on pensioner's income, while at the same time considering dropping the highest tax rate for very high earners.

It would be interesting to see the ratio between the income of the average FTSE 100 retired CEO and the average retired person from any other area of business. Wasn't it Fred Goodwin who wrecked a bank, retired at age 50 and agreed to concede to a reduced £342,000 a year (plus a £2.7m tax-free lump sum) for the rest of his life?

So is there fairness here somewhere? Or is it all about greed, power, and what you can get away with if you're "high enough up" in the system?

jamesd

ExBT_Bob wrote: »

It doesn't just affect public sector pensions, a number of private schemes are affected too, with companies now renaging on their promises to their pensioners and robbing them to pay the shareholders instead. This doesn't help the public finances!

Right. It helps my pension income instead, because that's more profits for the company that my pension money is invested in. Same for the rest of us who are using modern pensions.

The petition is trying to enrich pensioners with old fashioned pensions at the expense of those with more modern pensions and general tax payers. That's not a fair proposition.

Meeper

fwor wrote: »

You don't seem to realise that it's not a matter of the RPI indexing being "unaffordable". The idea behind indexing is to make sure that pensioners keep up with price rises - and nothing more.

CPI measures changes in the price level of consumer goods and services purchased by households. RPI, on the other hand, includes mortgage interest payments, property depreciation and council tax, almost none of which generally applies to pensioners. The volatility of RPI is also a factor which undermines its use as a measure to be used for the pruposes of indexation. Now, if you want to argue that the government should be using RPIX instead of CPI, you might have a stronger case, but I suspect you will see RPI in its current form become obsolete within the next couple of years and RPIX or CPI being the predominant inflationary measure.

The government seems quite happy to carry out this raid on pensioner's income, while at the same time considering dropping the highest tax rate for very high earners.

Get off your high horse. The 50% income tax rate brings in little cash at all, whilst only serving to alienate wealth creators and drive them overseas or to hold funds offshore. This is why your argument doesn't work - you look at individual issues instead of fitting everything together in the big picture. Glad you don't work in the Treasury. The IMF, CBI and Bank of England have all said this week that the way through to recovery it to keep doing what we're doing.

It would be interesting to see the ratio between the income of the average FTSE 100 retired CEO and the average retired person from any other area of business.

CEO's are wealth and job creators. They bear the responsibility for the entire company, potentially thousands of jobs as well as millions of pounds in investors funds. It all falls on the shoulders of the CEO. You have no idea the kind of pressure they are under or the sheer amount of work they have had to go through to get to that position in the first place. The responsibility of the CEO dwarfs that of any other individual within the business and it is right that the CEO is remunerated commensurate with that responsibility.

So is there fairness here somewhere? Or is it all about greed, power, and what you can get away with if you're "high enough up" in the system?

Are you from the old Soviet Union? We live in a capitalist society son, that's just the way it is. Yes, I inserted the word "son" specifically to be condescending there, just for devilment. The good part about a capitalist society is that if you want it, you can do it too. Anyone can. Get a good enough education, work hard, go the extra mile and push the boundaries. It's not like there's a particular bunch of people from a particular area who are labelled as those who will be allowed to "make it". Anyone can do it. Fair is an interesting word. Why is it "fair" that someone who pays for themselves to go to the best schools in the world and get the best education, sometimes costing tens of thousands of pounds (perhaps hundreds of thousands), sacrificing time with their families over the years and taking on the burden of being responsible for the well-being of thousands of staff should have to pay around 62% of their hard-earned income away in taxes every month, whilst other people who haven't worked so hard, didn't try as hard in school, didn't push themselves, don't go out of their way to help anyone else and have no responsibilities get to pay just 20%? You need to wake up to the fact that the "fat-cats" as you may call them are the ones who keep the world turning for everyone else. That's just the way it is.

Rant over.

le_loup

Meeper wrote: »

RPI, on the other hand, includes mortgage interest payments, property depreciation and council tax, almost none of which generally applies to pensioners.

Well it's good to know that pensioners do not pay council tax nor do their properties depreciate. Thanks, I'll bear that in mind when my guttering goes and my rates are due.

le_loup

Meeper wrote: »

CEO's are wealth and job creators.

Quite right. Fred created a lot of wealth ... for Fred.