Sunday 18 December 2011

Sunday, December 18, 2011 Posted by Jake 4 comments Labels: , , , , , ,
Posted by Jake on Sunday, December 18, 2011 with 4 comments | Labels: , , , , , ,

The UK government says that raising pensions by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of the Retail Price Index (RPI) is the fair thing to do. This is inspite of the fact that pensioners, who are already struggling financially, will lose a large chunk of their income.

So what would have happened if MPs' pay and perks had been linked to inflation?:

An MP’s allowances in 1975, of £3,200, would have risen by 2007 to £19,367 if RPI inflation had been applied. In fact the actual figure was £90,505.

If an MP’s 1975 salary, of £5,750, had simply matched the RPI inflation, then in 2007 it would be £34,801. In fact, it grew to £60,675. 


  1. The coalition brought in the "triple lock": pensions would increase by the inflation rate, increase in earnings or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. If CPI dips below 2.5%, then pensions will rise by at least 2.5%. They will increase by more if wages increase by more than 2.5%. Your graphics do not take account of this!

  2. Some people have tweeted and commented about the 'triple lock guarantee', in which George Osborne promised pensions would rise by at least 2.5% even if inflation is lower than that. While this is a promise, it isn't the law. Promises by politicians, whether left or right, tend to be a matter of convenience rather than principle.

    The LibDems, in June 2014, said they would make this 'triple lock' law should they be in a position to do so.

  3. Thanks Jake. Even I would have been fooled. A whole new meaning to "brought in"? I wonder if Mr Macro will be back. Was it a slip or a ploy?

  4. Can anyone do a similar graphic adding FTSE 100 CEOs or KPMG partners?


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Share This

Follow Us

  • Subscribe via Email

Search Us