Pensions - Articles - No change but postive things to take from RPI decision


 Glyn Bradley, Associate at Mercer, commented

 “The headline is ‘no change to RPI’ but in fact today’s decision is actually a positive decision to keep the significant changes accidentally introduced in 2010, although we expect the ONS to continue to investigate whether it can improve the index.”
 
 “Back then, an apparently minor technical decision was made to improve the way clothing and footwear prices were collected. However, for various statistical reasons, those changes seem to have widened the gap between CPI and RPI by around an extra half a percent per year. That sounds small but it could increase RPI-based benefits by about 10% over the course of 20 years. Although this will be a relief to pensioners receiving RPI - linked benefits, the flip side is that employers' costs are higher than they might reasonably have expected. The ONS has an ongoing task of ensuring its inflation calculations are robust and we expect it will continue to investigate whether the difference between RPI and CPI can be defended.”
  

Back to Index


Similar News to this Story

4 ways completing a tax return can help boost your pension
Missing the Self-Assessment deadline not only risks a penalty for late filing but could cost individuals hundreds, if not thousands of pounds in uncla
DWP holds AE thresholds with GBP90bn of pensions expected
The DWP has issued its review of the Automatic Enrolment Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band for 2025/26, retaining all three thresholds at
Response to Triple Lock means testing comments
Aegon has called for ‘a future focused debate on a sustainable state pension’ following comments on the Triple Lock by Conservative leader Kemi Badeno

Site Search

Exact   Any  

Latest Actuarial Jobs

Actuarial Login

Email
Password
 Jobseeker    Client
Reminder Logon

APA Sponsors

Actuarial Jobs & News Feeds

Jobs RSS News RSS

WikiActuary

Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.