Pensions triple lock - doomed ?
Discussion
Amateurish said:
I thought the new state pension was £160 a week?
Yes it is, but that is the max if you have 35 years of contributions. What hasn't been mentioned is those people who prior to the changes would have been entitled to a state 2nd pension. These people will have lost out - so again those paying in the most, get rounded down to the average. So the new pension is generous to some and not so much for others. As has been mentioned previously in this thread the richer help out the poorer.
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.
loafer123 said:
Increasing at the greater of earnings inflation or prices inflation is more than enough protection, so this is a good idea to reign in future welfare cost growth. Something has to give and it is either this or a more rapidly increasing retirement age.
Pensions ONLY need to inflate by price inflation. There is absolutely no need for the other two links and if they were scrapped tomorrow it wouldn't be soon enough.
If pensioners wish to keep pace with people earning they can go and earn. And if they want to outpace price rises they can invest their personal money elsewhere.
This should be one of those cuts that should be a nailed on no brainer.
Jockman said:
We had this debate a while back and despite repeated requests, nobody would confirm what they thought constituted 'old'.
From the Ashcroft analysis IIRC the nearest we could get to was mid to late 40s.
Hardly a grey Brexit vote.
Late 40s? Feck that. From the Ashcroft analysis IIRC the nearest we could get to was mid to late 40s.
Hardly a grey Brexit vote.
It' s crankedup's age minus 1yr. Which should set it at 73 I reckon.
sidicks said:
superkartracer said:
If an average person ( wage ) invested NI over 45 years @ 5% growth equates to a pot of around 600k + , with better growth well over a million.
Bargain .
What is the average rate of NIC you are assuming and what average salary (growing at what rate)?Bargain .
Murph7355 said:
loafer123 said:
Increasing at the greater of earnings inflation or prices inflation is more than enough protection, so this is a good idea to reign in future welfare cost growth. Something has to give and it is either this or a more rapidly increasing retirement age.
Pensions ONLY need to inflate by price inflation. There is absolutely no need for the other two links and if they were scrapped tomorrow it wouldn't be soon enough.
If pensioners wish to keep pace with people earning they can go and earn. And if they want to outpace price rises they can invest their personal money elsewhere.
This should be one of those cuts that should be a nailed on no brainer.
The overhaul worked and the State pension can be discribed as reasonable imo. Further agree that us pensioners who wish for a more prosperous lifestyle can chance it on investments. Where to invest is the problem, it appears many investors are turning thier backs on traditional safe investment areas such as building societies and banks. Very difficult for a pensioner to be able to invest and earn a good return in the current climate, sure the stock market has done well recently, but it's the long term certainty required and safe investments now return a loss.
crankedup said:
Agreed, the triple lock was only introduced as a mechanism for bring pensions up to a level that Government deemed/agreed is a acceptable amount Pensions has fallen to a level whereby it was a National disgrace, recall the 47p increase which set in motion the pensions overhaul.
The overhaul worked and the State pension can be discribed as reasonable imo. Further agree that us pensioners who wish for a more prosperous lifestyle can chance it on investments. Where to invest is the problem, it appears many investors are turning thier backs on traditional safe investment areas such as building societies and banks. Very difficult for a pensioner to be able to invest and earn a good return in the current climate, sure the stock market has done well recently, but it's the long term certainty required and safe investments now return a loss.
You need to invest in a new iPad and an hour a day with Mavis Beacon! The overhaul worked and the State pension can be discribed as reasonable imo. Further agree that us pensioners who wish for a more prosperous lifestyle can chance it on investments. Where to invest is the problem, it appears many investors are turning thier backs on traditional safe investment areas such as building societies and banks. Very difficult for a pensioner to be able to invest and earn a good return in the current climate, sure the stock market has done well recently, but it's the long term certainty required and safe investments now return a loss.
ATG said:
(Also what fraction of NI are you allocating to the virtual fund given that people also think of it as being a contribution to the NHS, unemployment benefits, etc)
With wages increasing at 3% p.a. (And a current average wage at £27k), growth of 5% p.a. would require a contribution rate of 30.5% to get you to £600k after 45 years...sidicks said:
ATG said:
(Also what fraction of NI are you allocating to the virtual fund given that people also think of it as being a contribution to the NHS, unemployment benefits, etc)
With wages increasing at 3% p.a. (And a current average wage at £27k), growth of 5% p.a. would require a contribution rate of 30.5% to get you to £600k after 45 years...People generally have no clue whatsoever about the true cost of things.
I await the criticism of your posting style and approach in 5....
crankedup said:
Agreed, the triple lock was only introduced as a mechanism for bring pensions up to a level that Government deemed/agreed is a acceptable amount Pensions has fallen to a level whereby it was a National disgrace, recall the 47p increase which set in motion the pensions overhaul.
The pension level hadn't fallen at all. In fact for most of the last century it rose in line with incomes and therefore ahead of inflation. It was changed to rise in line with prices with all party support, but one year of negligible price rises caused tabloid headlines and the triple lock was to avoid this.Even if prices and wages stay level, the triple lock will mean 2.5% rises evermore. It makes no sense.
Murph7355 said:
crankedup said:
Agreed, the triple lock was only introduced as a mechanism for bring pensions up to a level that Government deemed/agreed is a acceptable amount Pensions has fallen to a level whereby it was a National disgrace, recall the 47p increase which set in motion the pensions overhaul.
The overhaul worked and the State pension can be discribed as reasonable imo. Further agree that us pensioners who wish for a more prosperous lifestyle can chance it on investments. Where to invest is the problem, it appears many investors are turning thier backs on traditional safe investment areas such as building societies and banks. Very difficult for a pensioner to be able to invest and earn a good return in the current climate, sure the stock market has done well recently, but it's the long term certainty required and safe investments now return a loss.
You need to invest in a new iPad and an hour a day with Mavis Beacon! The overhaul worked and the State pension can be discribed as reasonable imo. Further agree that us pensioners who wish for a more prosperous lifestyle can chance it on investments. Where to invest is the problem, it appears many investors are turning thier backs on traditional safe investment areas such as building societies and banks. Very difficult for a pensioner to be able to invest and earn a good return in the current climate, sure the stock market has done well recently, but it's the long term certainty required and safe investments now return a loss.
Murph7355 said:
sidicks said:
ATG said:
(Also what fraction of NI are you allocating to the virtual fund given that people also think of it as being a contribution to the NHS, unemployment benefits, etc)
With wages increasing at 3% p.a. (And a current average wage at £27k), growth of 5% p.a. would require a contribution rate of 30.5% to get you to £600k after 45 years...People generally have no clue whatsoever about the true cost of things.
I await the criticism of your posting style and approach in 5....
Dicing with stat's is a meaningless exercise used by people who earn livings by researching them out for politicians to use them and abuse them.
Only those that were promised a repayment of money that they paid in + interest have earnt that right.
crankedup said:
That 3% wage increase is an average, as is the average wage statement. I'm confident that you will tell me of the true wage inflation rate and the National wage average when the London and City salaries have been excluded from the maths.
Dicing with stat's is a meaningless exercise used by people who earn livings by researching them out for politicians to use them and abuse them.
Only those that were promised a repayment of money that they paid in + interest have earnt that right.
They were promised no such thing. They were promised a given pension which is entirely unrelated to the amount paid in and the interest that could be earned. That's precisely the point.Dicing with stat's is a meaningless exercise used by people who earn livings by researching them out for politicians to use them and abuse them.
Only those that were promised a repayment of money that they paid in + interest have earnt that right.
Reducing the average salary to exclude London and the City just strengthens my argument!
And once again, the triple lock was a very recent introduction, it was neither expected when these people were earning pensions nor guaranteed to remain in place forever, thus removing this is entirely fair.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th April 20:33
Yes a lifetime spent building a good reputatation regarding inter lectural debate ruined by a moment of inattention and haste. Such is the world today, judgemental, harsh, unforgiving, full of politically correct circus performers. My world has been blown apart and will never be the same again
Dr Jekyll said:
crankedup said:
Agreed, the triple lock was only introduced as a mechanism for bring pensions up to a level that Government deemed/agreed is a acceptable amount Pensions has fallen to a level whereby it was a National disgrace, recall the 47p increase which set in motion the pensions overhaul.
The pension level hadn't fallen at all. In fact for most of the last century it rose in line with incomes and therefore ahead of inflation. It was changed to rise in line with prices with all party support, but one year of negligible price rises caused tabloid headlines and the triple lock was to avoid this.Even if prices and wages stay level, the triple lock will mean 2.5% rises evermore. It makes no sense.
pim said:
I've had a few quid a week pension rise this year the state pension.Rates have shot up and cost of living.It makes no sense? Balks to you started work at 16 I deserve my few pounds.
You may well deserve the pension - why do you think that you deserve an additional uplift that a) wasn't factored into your contributions, b) wasn't part of your initial pension promise and c) is more generous than the wage increases that many hardworking people are facing?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff