Pensions triple lock - doomed ?
Discussion
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
Possibly not doomed after all...the DT an hour or so ago published an online piece claiming that May is considering keeping the triple lock guarantee, under pressure it says, so a reasonable chance
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/26/theresa...
I heard a snippet, the triple lock may be downgraded to a double lock. Having opened this thread using the voting of pensioners may be directed to other political parties it's possible that the advisors have took note. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/26/theresa...
It's almost enough to make me want to vote LibDem in protest...
Grow a pair Theresa.
NI is and always has been just another form of income and employment tax. It has never been allocated to specific areas of government spending, i.e. it is not earmarked for paying pensions. When it was introduced it was branded as a way of paying towards the newly introduced features of the welfare state including the NHS. The branding, particularly misusing the word "Insurance", has not helped people think clearly about tax, current spending and future liabilities.
crankedup said:
Dr Jekyll said:
crankedup said:
I would like to offer my thoughts on this question.
Pensioners certainly deserved the triple lock application, it was introduced for the simple reason of lifting the pension payment to what the Government feels is a fair and proportionate sum of money to pensioners. That level has now been reached, thus the possible removal of all or some of the triple lock.
If the pension had been raised in line with prices since it's inception, it would now be around £25 a week.Pensioners certainly deserved the triple lock application, it was introduced for the simple reason of lifting the pension payment to what the Government feels is a fair and proportionate sum of money to pensioners. That level has now been reached, thus the possible removal of all or some of the triple lock.
The irony of this thread is off the scale.
May won't commit to triple lock because its not affordable. And it will be made even less affordable by Brexit.
In 2017, the Government will spend ~12% of its budget on Pensions, or nearly 5% of the total national income, on Pensions. These figures will only rise as more and more from the baby boomers retire over the next 10 years, and the death rate continues to slow.
Since we're not even sure if Theresa May and her Three Brexiteers know what Brexit means yet; let alone anyone else; we can only speculate that the hard Brexit being talked about is going to mean an economy impacted by restrictions on access to the European Single Market and reduction in numbers of working immigrants; (and the loss of tax income from them)
So... a weakened economy, and fewer tax payers.
And even if you're a brexiteer who dismisses all such arguments out of hand, it's still a bit rich for the selfish grey haired generation to whine about the loss of triple lock, when their children and grandchildren not only face higher taxes in coming years, we've already been told we won't be getting our state pensions at 65.
May won't commit to triple lock because its not affordable. And it will be made even less affordable by Brexit.
In 2017, the Government will spend ~12% of its budget on Pensions, or nearly 5% of the total national income, on Pensions. These figures will only rise as more and more from the baby boomers retire over the next 10 years, and the death rate continues to slow.
Since we're not even sure if Theresa May and her Three Brexiteers know what Brexit means yet; let alone anyone else; we can only speculate that the hard Brexit being talked about is going to mean an economy impacted by restrictions on access to the European Single Market and reduction in numbers of working immigrants; (and the loss of tax income from them)
So... a weakened economy, and fewer tax payers.
And even if you're a brexiteer who dismisses all such arguments out of hand, it's still a bit rich for the selfish grey haired generation to whine about the loss of triple lock, when their children and grandchildren not only face higher taxes in coming years, we've already been told we won't be getting our state pensions at 65.
esxste said:
The irony of this thread is off the scale.
May won't commit to triple lock because its not affordable. And it will be made even less affordable by Brexit.
In 2017, the Government will spend ~12% of its budget on Pensions, or nearly 5% of the total national income, on Pensions. These figures will only rise as more and more from the baby boomers retire over the next 10 years, and the death rate continues to slow.
Since we're not even sure if Theresa May and her Three Brexiteers know what Brexit means yet; let alone anyone else; we can only speculate that the hard Brexit being talked about is going to mean an economy impacted by restrictions on access to the European Single Market and reduction in numbers of working immigrants; (and the loss of tax income from them)
So... a weakened economy, and fewer tax payers.
And even if you're a brexiteer who dismisses all such arguments out of hand, it's still a bit rich for the selfish grey haired generation to whine about the loss of triple lock, when their children and grandchildren not only face higher taxes in coming years, we've already been told we won't be getting our state pensions at 65.
Politics dear boy, politics.May won't commit to triple lock because its not affordable. And it will be made even less affordable by Brexit.
In 2017, the Government will spend ~12% of its budget on Pensions, or nearly 5% of the total national income, on Pensions. These figures will only rise as more and more from the baby boomers retire over the next 10 years, and the death rate continues to slow.
Since we're not even sure if Theresa May and her Three Brexiteers know what Brexit means yet; let alone anyone else; we can only speculate that the hard Brexit being talked about is going to mean an economy impacted by restrictions on access to the European Single Market and reduction in numbers of working immigrants; (and the loss of tax income from them)
So... a weakened economy, and fewer tax payers.
And even if you're a brexiteer who dismisses all such arguments out of hand, it's still a bit rich for the selfish grey haired generation to whine about the loss of triple lock, when their children and grandchildren not only face higher taxes in coming years, we've already been told we won't be getting our state pensions at 65.
I voted for out of the eu and I will vote Tory at this GE, for the first time in my life. However, my vote is only to secure the best brexit deal possible and May is the only politician who seems to have an ounce of political intelligence (as opposed to interlectural person)
Quite. Hard Brexit is out of the single market and freedom of movement. We may get elements of equivalence and many in Europe are keen to get a deal that doesn't damage them either. Hard Brexit isn't no deal. May needs to be empowered to push through a deal without local political grandstanding from the clowns in the labour party (whom can't even come up with a coherent CT strategy).
The point on less tax paying immigrants IS very valid. We absolutely should be encouraging working immigrants and those contributing to the UK tax coffers. Whether highly skilled or not. May and Hammond, do need to cone up with a fiscal program that encourages regeneration of the regions and wider employment opportunities (made easier by Brexit).
The point on less tax paying immigrants IS very valid. We absolutely should be encouraging working immigrants and those contributing to the UK tax coffers. Whether highly skilled or not. May and Hammond, do need to cone up with a fiscal program that encourages regeneration of the regions and wider employment opportunities (made easier by Brexit).
crankedup said:
Politics dear boy, politics.
I voted for out of the eu and I will vote Tory at this GE, for the first time in my life. However, my vote is only to secure the best brexit deal possible and May is the only politician who seems to have an ounce of political intelligence (as opposed to interlectural person)
Bloody interlecturals. I bet they support Ingerlund I voted for out of the eu and I will vote Tory at this GE, for the first time in my life. However, my vote is only to secure the best brexit deal possible and May is the only politician who seems to have an ounce of political intelligence (as opposed to interlectural person)
crankedup said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
crankedup said:
Maybe we should abandon the current Capitalistic Society and live under Communist rule. You seem to be judging your neighbours in a bad light for being successful ?
give him a break he is still reeling from his declaration that Rafa Benitez was the worst manager in the championship and would be sacked by Christmas.People need to remember that if they are lucky they will also become old and may well be dependant on the state to some extent.
Bet plenty of Newcastle brown has gone down well.Yup, it's not like, can't wait until I'm old then I can be perceived as being a burden on the State and 'dispised' by some for having lived. Thank God people like that are a very small minority.
sidicks said:
superkartracer said:
Not at all , it was just a quick post without going into details ( as busy ) , even taking the 250k without growth and a small increase each year of your £150/week , that pot lasts 30 years + till running dry . Many people are dead a few years after retirement at 67 ( or whatever they make it ) , even so the pot lasts till you're 90+ .
Except it doesn't, as outlined above.And there isn't a pot.
And most people pay in less than the 'average'.
Etc
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 26th April 09:43
And many people pay in nothing at all and they're the ones whose long term care is paid for by the rest of us. That's why it doesn't work.
Sensible thing to do. There's a justification for either inflation or growth linking - not sure there's a case for 'higher of the two'.
Nonetheless the 2.5% floor was the most egregious anomaly with no justification, so the work is largely done.
Hypothetical question: if both growth and inflation went negative, would they cut pensions?
(I don't think so...)
Nonetheless the 2.5% floor was the most egregious anomaly with no justification, so the work is largely done.
Hypothetical question: if both growth and inflation went negative, would they cut pensions?
(I don't think so...)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff