Tories Now Marxists for the International Bankers

Here we see the Tories stealing private property from people to use to subsidise the international bankers.

This is more proof of the fact that Communism and Capitalism are merely tools of the same elite, the International Bankers.

This is pure communism.

To take money owned by British citizens and use it to fund the International Banks that now run Britain, is a total disgrace.

But you mugs voted for it - so you deserve all you get.

I told you time after time on this blog that the Tories would lie to get in power and then begin to destroy the Welfare State and rob you of your money - but you mugs voted the way the media told you too.

So you deserve it.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100006865/savers-hit-by-marxist-solution-to-pension-problem/


Who would have thought a Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government would adopt a Marxist approach to dealing with pension savers impudent enough to expect to be paid what they have been promised?

The proposal that company pensions should follow the government’s lead on public sector and State pensions and drop inflation-proofing from the retail prices index (RPI) to replace it with the much lower consumer prices index (CPI) is playing fast and loose with statistics. This is reminiscent not just of the communist Karl but of the comedian Groucho who – when caught in a tight corner – said: “Those are my principles – and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.”

But there is nothing laughable about this slick substitution of statistics. Savers are being stripped of the security against inflation they thought they were buying with contributions into company and occupational pensions which had a legal obligation to match RPI. Now Steve Webb, pensions minister, proposes to water that down to CPI which is currently rising at a rate one third lower than RPI.

At the current rate of divergence, actuaries calculate that the lower rate of indexation would mean £800 less annual income in six years’ time for savers entering retirement on national average earnings, as I pointed out in this space when the change was announced for public sector and State pensions last month. That assumes RPI and CPI remain at constant levels, which might prove optimistic depending on what happens to the cost of living in the real world.

While RPI includes housing, heating and council tax in its calculation of inflation, none of these costs is included in the CPI. That’s why RPI is currently rising by 5.1 per cent a year, or half as much again as CPI which is rising by only 3.4 per cent.

Actuarial consultants Towers Watson calculate that, based on Treasury inflation forecasts, by 2016, a pensioner currently receiving £10,000 a year will be more than £800 a year worse off as a result of the change. This is because their pension will have increased to around £11,400 whereas it would have grown to more than £12,200 under the old rules.

Whether this annual loss gets bigger or less in future will depend on whether RPI inflation remains higher than CPI inflation. At current levels, during the six years between April 2011 and March 2017, a pensioner currently receiving £10,000 a year would lose more than £2,500 in total.

How long will it be before the Government decides it also prefers to use the lower measure of inflation as the benchmark for National Savings & Investments‘ index-linked certificates? Or index-linked gilt-edged stock? Both are currently linked to RPI but, when politicians start helping themselves to savers’ private property, it often proves habit-forming.

As mentioned earlier, the real cost to pensioners of Mr Webb’s statistical substitution depends on whether RPI remains higher than CPI in future. But the past is not encouraging. Geoff Everett, private client tax director at accoutants Smith & Williamson calculated outcomes for two pensioners – one linked to RPI, the other to CPI – over more than the last decade. He said: “The person with the RPI linked pension has been better off in every year since 1996.

“If, for the sake of simplicity, we assume they both started on £100 a week, we see that this rose to £125.77 a week in 2009 for the individual with the CPI-linked pension, while the person with the RPI-linked pension was getting almost £140 a week. Based on this comparison, RPI looks to be preferable since the individual is better off by £14.18 a week, representing about £737 extra per year.”

Perhaps we should not be surprised that companies and the Government, which find themselves short of funds to honour the promises they issued to pension savers, should prefer the lower level of indexation. Mr Webb’s proposal is good news for underfunded pensions but bad news for pensioners.

Why should the Government care about private companies’ pension problems? Because it would much rather not see the dwindling band of final salary schemes still standing in the private sector collapse during its watch. That might make it much harder for MPs and the public sector to hang onto their taxpayer-subsidised final salary schemes.

Self interest is the one motivation you can always rely on. The Government is keen to let employers off the hook so private sector final salary schemes can be kept going for a little longer while inflation stealthily erodes their real value or purchasing power. With any luck, by the time most people realise what is going on, Mr Webb will be wrapped in ermine and enjoying his amply inflation-proofed Parliamentary pension.