Archive 6 of IBM UK's radical downgrade : AMIPP Forums (Message Boards)
of its pension provision.
YOU CAN NO LONGER POST HERE! This is now an archive
Re: Pension Statements - A strange CPI Issue
Posted by: Mad Dog (IP Logged)
Date: 10 February 2014 12:07AM
Eddy - I'm confused.
On the Dec 2012 statement, the pension quoted from ages 60 to 63 is the same (let's call it "X"). On the Jan 2014 statement, the same figure X is quoted at ages 60 and 61, however at age 62 the pension figure increases by 2.67% and then at age 63 by 4.18%. Is that the same pattern that you see on your statements?
I am also paranoid and mistrustful of the dark forces operating behind the scenes but I'm trying to keep an open mind. On the the Jan 2014 statement, the pension quoted at ages 60 and 61 is higher than what it would have been if calculated on the basis of a 4% ERDF from 63. This was not the case on the Dec 2012 statement, where the pension was identical from ages 60 to 63 inclusive. This suggests to me that I have somehow benefitted from the C Plan court case (or am I being naive?).
On the Dec 2012 statement, the pension quoted from ages 60 to 63 is the same (let's call it "X"). On the Jan 2014 statement, the same figure X is quoted at ages 60 and 61, however at age 62 the pension figure increases by 2.67% and then at age 63 by 4.18%. Is that the same pattern that you see on your statements?
I am also paranoid and mistrustful of the dark forces operating behind the scenes but I'm trying to keep an open mind. On the the Jan 2014 statement, the pension quoted at ages 60 and 61 is higher than what it would have been if calculated on the basis of a 4% ERDF from 63. This was not the case on the Dec 2012 statement, where the pension was identical from ages 60 to 63 inclusive. This suggests to me that I have somehow benefitted from the C Plan court case (or am I being naive?).
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.