OAP Pension Inflation Tax Grab

In message , Andy Pandy writes

It didn't happen!

Suddenly we are talking about "real-terms" increases.

The SERPS amount paid out this year was exactly the same as last year (£69.86 net in my case), therefore the SERPS real-terms increase was

1.4%, NOT INFLATION PLUS 1.4% as you state. Therefore SERPS only increased in line with a negative inflation figure, ie- it was not reduced. (Thanks very much)!

As you say, "some people are too stupid" except perhaps the ones receiving SERPS, who have reason to take a closer interest. 8-(

Yes it did.

Erm, yes, they are what is relevant to most people. The purchasing power of your pension.

Er, yes.

Exactly. When was the last time you saw a real-terms increase in SERPS?

FFS. I didn't state that was the real-terms increase. I said it was the "...biggest real-terms rise in state pensions...", followed by a full stop, followed by "Basic state pension up by inflation plus

3.9%..." The 3.9% is the real terms increase, obviously. And 1.4% for SERPS.

Should think so too.

You might receive it but you clearly don't understand it. Or basic financial concepts. Typical Labour voter :-)

"Gordon H" wrote

So you'd prefer that both were "increased" at 0%, rather than 2.5% on BSP and 0% on SERPS?

"Gordon H" wrote

When was the last time that the 2.5% underpin applied on the BSP?

In message , Tim writes

If I'm bored some time I'll check my notifications over the last 11 years. ;-)

In message , Andy Pandy writes

Ha Ha Ha!

I understand the concept well, but in any case the rate of inflation depends on what you spend your money on. If I ate electronic gadgets my true inflation rate would be much lower, but I noticed that for one example fresh peppers rose from about 65p to 80p in a little over one year, about 23% inflation, and I eat more peppers than iPods, mobile phones or PCs, which are crap in stir-fries . ;-)

I notice you didn't answer this. Would you really prefer the same increase (0%) on both BSP & SERPS?

There's no need, I'll give you a hint: Never. So - your comment "as it has been in previous years" is invalid!! [The 2.5% underpin has never been "applied to both BSP & SERPS".]

In message , Tim writes

And it still hasn't, as yet, unless we believe in politician's promises. ;-) There was no 2.5% underpinning of SERPS this year, but it has always previously been incremented by the same %age as the basic SP.

What politician's promises?

"Gordon H" wrote

Yep, that'll be because it was never promised that there would be - the 2.5% underpin only applies to BSP (not SERPS).

Let's suppose for a minute that SERPS *had* been increased by 2.5% as well -- if that had happened, then who do you think should have paid the increase on "Post-'88 GMP"? (for pensioners receiving benefits from a final salary contracted-out scheme) - the scheme or the state? - Or do you think they shouldn't have got it?

"Gordon H" wrote

SERPS was previously incremented by max(RPI,0%), and has been again.

BSP was previously incremented by max(RPI,0%) as well, but this time they decided to increase it by more. Did you really want the BSP increase to remain on the same formula as BSP & SERPS had been previously?

In message , Tim writes

Could I ask you if you are in receipt of BSP and SERPS?

If so, how much did yours increase in April this year?

"Gordon H" wrote

EVERYONE's BSP increased at 2.5%, and EVERYONE's SERPS increased at 0% !!

Now will you answer my questions? Or are you just trolling?

In message , Tim writes

That's what I said days ago, and was contradicted.. WTF?

"Gordon H" wrote

You'll have to do better than "... was contradicted" - can you point to the actual post you're referring to?

As I remember, no-one in this thread has ever disputed my two comments above.

I think any contradiction was in your own mind only, and based on a misunderstanding (yours). AIUI you took the 0% rise to mean that "it did not rise" or "was frozen".

That was not the case. To "freeze it" would have required a policy decision to have been made, specific to that occasion, that contrary to the prevailing rule, it would not rise. No such decision to depart from the rule was made.

It rose according to the normal rule, namely that it should go up by inflation, or by nothing, whichever is greater. Inflation was negative, so it rose by nothing (which was a real-terms increase).