Journals and magazines with statistics on company pensions affected by the 1995 Pensions Act.

ffacoffipawb

Jesus wept.

JoeCrystal

BML said:

I opened this post by simply asking for information on how many companies as a percentage of all companies used the 1995 act to deprive their employees of an annual increase to their pension whilst giving it to others but it is obvious that members of this forum are not inclined to do that so it’s time to part our ways  

But there isn't any information at all on that at all. The only two things I can think of if to request the data from the Office of National Statistics and the Pension Regulators. So if you want the data, then go and ask them instead. Be warned that they will not likely answer your question due to the excessive cost of finding the information. 

coyrls

how many companies as a percentage of all companies used the 1995 act to deprive their employees of an annual increase to their pension whilst giving it to others

0%

Brynsam

BML said:

Marcon

Please see my answer above - the 'information' you are seeking isn't available anywhere because it doesn't exist; it doesn't need to, because your question is based on an entirely false premise.  A premise if I remember it correctly is a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion. In other words, "if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"

With the greatest respect, Marcon and AnotherJoe are making the mistake that Professor Freddy Ayer exposed many years ago. By that I mean that Logic is very little to do with truth. “Logic leads from one point to another within its own self connected system. Truth is a fact. Truth is a location, logic is a map. So if logic is sound and based on truth, all conclusions reached by the logic should be true.  The problem arises if the logic is not sound as in the case of the logic that Marcon and AnotherJoe are using.

I believe that one may assume that prior to the 1995 Pensions Act  all members of a company pension scheme paid the same percentage into the scheme. Yet, the facts are that the 1995 Pensions Act gave some pension members annual increases whilst at the same time it deprived other members of the very same scheme of the very same annual pension increase others in their company received. No one will ever convince me that was a fair thing to do.

If the premise is flawed, then the conclusion must be flawed.

There is a difference between logic and fact - and the answers here are using facts, which you don't like, so you are determined they are 'wrong'.

The 1995 Act did not deprive members who left active membership of the scheme prior to the time the Act came into force of anything, so convincing you that a non-event wasn't fair is likely to be a waste of time.

Concrete shoes...

AnotherJoe

BML said:

BML.

I believe that one may assume that prior to the 1995 Pensions Act  all members of a company pension scheme paid the same percentage into the scheme. Yet, the facts are that the 1995 Pensions Act gave some pension members annual increases whilst at the same time it deprived other members of the very same scheme of the very same annual pension increase others in their company received. No one will ever convince me that was a fair thing to do.

Your belief as to what happened is clearly  incorrect, hence your conclusions are.

I opened this post by simply asking for information on how many companies as a percentage of all companies used the 1995 act to deprive their employees of an annual increase to their pension whilst giving it to others but it is obvious that members of this forum are not inclined to do that so it’s time to part our ways  

Because the answer is "zero' and you cannot follow simple logic, would be why its time to part our ways.

steampowered

I opened this post by simply asking for information on how many companies as a percentage of all companies used the 1995 act to deprive their employees of an annual increase to their pension whilst giving it to others but it is obvious that members of this forum are not inclined to do that so it’s time to part our ways  

You were given a very clear answer to your question. The answer is zero.

You may not like the answer, but it is the answer.

If you didn't have a right to an annual increase in 1994, the 1995 Act can't have taken that right away. Since you never had it in the first place.

Malthusian

For context, the OP is c. 83 years old and found out about this a year ago in April 2019. After initially accepting that the company had done nothing wrong, he got a bee in his bonnet three months later and started his one man WASPI campaign. A year later he has for whatever reason started it again.

The facts have not changed since July 2019 and he was still right the first time: the company has done nothing wrong and he has lost nothing. Just providing some context to help other forumers decide whether to waste more time on this.

westv said:

Prior to being taken over by the PPF my DB pension from a previous employer had in payment RPI increases up to 5% as far as I remember. Under the PPF there will be no in payment increases as it all refers to pre 97 service.

Apparently it shouldn't have been paying discretionary RPI increases as the scheme didn't have enough money to make discretionary payments. Otherwise it wouldn't have gone into the PPF.

Notepad_Phil

I have a small amount of sympathy for the OP's position as I have a deferred DB pension that will only have a very limited amount of index proofing once it starts paying out, due to the majority of my career with the company being in the 80's. There are discretionary increases, which the company did use to regularly add on, but there's been next to none over the last umpteen years which is no doubt partly due to the increased costs that companies face with DB pensions due to the additional regulations they now face. However I realise that I was never guaranteed anything and so I made sure I had other means to hopefully keep me in the style of life that I would like to live for the next 30+ years now I'm early retired in my late fifties.