Tata pension - change from RPI to CPI and maybe more

jamesd

By contrast with the 5800 who could benefit from a windfall if the scheme enters the PPF there are 776 members who are currently entitled to pensions above the current PPF cap level who would see a more severe reduction than 10% if the scheme entered the PPF. The non-PPF proposal would benefit those and at least one would end up with a 30% higher pension as a result. About 665 of those 776 would benefit from a plan to increase the PPF cap for those who have more than 20 years service and 75% of the 665 would no longer be capped.

As well as those 5800 who could benefit from a windfall and those who could suffer from the PPF cap about 70,000 members would have about the same outcome as the PPF, mainly those who have already reached normal retirement age for the scheme. About 50,000 mainly below NRA would see an additional 10% reduction beyond the PPF 10% reduction.

The 50,000 would presumably consider seeking the PPF since it makes them better off even though it would presumably eliminate the jobs of all current employees and helps others in the scheme.

PensionTech

As well as those 5800 who could benefit from a windfall and those who could suffer from the PPF cap about 70,000 members would have about the same outcome as the PPF, mainly those who have already reached normal retirement age for the scheme. About 50,000 mainly below NRA would see an additional 10% reduction beyond the PPF 10% reduction.

The 50,000 would presumably consider seeking the PPF since it makes them better off even though it would presumably eliminate the jobs of all current employees and helps others in the scheme.

I'm confused by your numbers. Are you saying that the 50,000 are better under the govt proposals or the PPF? If they are better off under the govt proposals (as is my understanding of paragraph 91 and the FT's report) then they would vote for the modification, surely. If they are better off under the PPF, and so are the other 5800 you mention, and the 70,000 majority don't go one way or the other, then who exactly does stand to benefit from the modification?

Also, I don't think there is any suggestion of a 10% reduction on top of the PPF's 10%. I think the 10% mentioned in the report is the PPF's 10%.

uk1

kidmugsy wrote: »

A graceless way to concede defeat.

You really are clueless aren't you.



Jeff

PensionTech

By the way, I mentioned earlier that RPI to CPI isn't the only possibility - the govt could also remove pre-97 increases in payment altogether using much the same reasoning. Reading the consultation more closely, it appears that this is exactly what they are in fact trying to do.

kidmugsy

PensionTech wrote: »

This from the FT:

It ends with "The document states that the one-month consultation will end on the same day as the EU referendum, June 23." Did you ever? Stone the crows! Knock me down with a feather! Blow me over!

Update: in case of doubt, it turns out to end at 11:45 p.m. Sir Humphrey would be proud.

uk1

PensionTech wrote: »

By the way, I mentioned earlier that RPI to CPI isn't the only possibility - the govt could also remove pre-97 increases in payment altogether using much the same reasoning. Reading the consultation more closely, it appears that this is exactly what they are in fact trying to do.

Are you suggesting that they could do this just for TATA or for every scheme, simply because of the TATA situation?

Jeff

kidmugsy

uk1 wrote: »

You really are clueless aren't you.



Jeff

When outargued you resort to insults. When you grow up you'll find that people won't be much impressed by that.

uk1

kidmugsy wrote: »

a graceless way to concede defeat.

kidmugsy wrote: »

when outargued you resort to insults. When you grow up you'll find that people won't be much impressed by that.

qed



..

jamesd

kidmugsy you know that retrospective changes to accrued pension benefits have happened many times so please stop the stuff with uk1.

If none come to mind here's a pair for private and public pensions:

1. Change to minimum pension age of 55 instead of 50
2. Increase in state pension age

uk1

jamesd wrote: »

kidmugsy you know that retrospective changes to accrued pension benefits have happened many times so please stop the stuff with uk1.

If none come to mind here's a pair for private and public pensions:

1. Change to minimum pension age of 55 instead of 50
2. Increase in state pension age

Thanks muchly.

And in the wider sphere of the help I posted for him (her?) about retrospective changes to legislation, I knew he (she) hadn't bothered reading it because if he (her) had done so they would be pleased to see that the licensing laws have had a special retrospective change this week to reflect the wider discretions required solely for the Queen's 90th birthday.

Raise a glass.

Jeff