Discussion
Is it reasonable to set fire to our economy to protect the elderly, damage the life prospects of everyone else including our children, then completely insulate them from any financial impacts?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ris...
“Rishi Sunak says he is ready to hand £4bn to pensioners next year to keep his “triple lock” pledge, despite rejecting a Covid catch-up plan for schools as too expensive.
The bounce-back from the pandemic has pushed average wage rises close to 6 per cent – which, under the controversial rule, would then become the increase in the state pension.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ris...
“Rishi Sunak says he is ready to hand £4bn to pensioners next year to keep his “triple lock” pledge, despite rejecting a Covid catch-up plan for schools as too expensive.
The bounce-back from the pandemic has pushed average wage rises close to 6 per cent – which, under the controversial rule, would then become the increase in the state pension.”
Depends on your point of view, for the sake of my retired Mum, yes I support it. For my son who’s completing his first year at University, I think he’s due a refund in tuition fees. As for school education of other people’s kids? Don’t care at all. Although the news about the number of kids living in poverty, qualifying for free school meals is pretty alarming.
There are winners and losers and typically we only want to pay taxes for the things that benefit us personally. Thankfully, the system doesn’t work like that.
There are winners and losers and typically we only want to pay taxes for the things that benefit us personally. Thankfully, the system doesn’t work like that.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 17th June 20:57
I'm retired but consider that affluent pensioners should be taxed more. In reality i do not need it.
I think I get £750/month state pension so not remotely enough to live off.
Many pensioners live off this and a few other top ups. For them it is exiting not living.
Please dispel the myth the the majority of pensioners are baby boomers with gold plated pensions and massive debt free houses.
I think I get £750/month state pension so not remotely enough to live off.
Many pensioners live off this and a few other top ups. For them it is exiting not living.
Please dispel the myth the the majority of pensioners are baby boomers with gold plated pensions and massive debt free houses.
dmahon said:
Is it reasonable to set fire to our economy to protect the elderly, damage the life prospects of everyone else including our children, then completely insulate them from any financial impacts?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ris...
“Rishi Sunak says he is ready to hand £4bn to pensioners next year to keep his “triple lock” pledge, despite rejecting a Covid catch-up plan for schools as too expensive.
The bounce-back from the pandemic has pushed average wage rises close to 6 per cent – which, under the controversial rule, would then become the increase in the state pension.”
Yes, it is reasonable! Most of the people this applies to rely on their state pensions to survive. They won’t all have a great workplace pensions and need the triple lock to ensure that the state pension keeps up with inflation etc.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ris...
“Rishi Sunak says he is ready to hand £4bn to pensioners next year to keep his “triple lock” pledge, despite rejecting a Covid catch-up plan for schools as too expensive.
The bounce-back from the pandemic has pushed average wage rises close to 6 per cent – which, under the controversial rule, would then become the increase in the state pension.”
The young people at school will catch up with what they have missed and when they start work they will be at the start of their earning potential. To punish the elderly by dumping the triple lock, when they have worked for a lifetime would be a crappy thing to do, not to mention a guaranteed vote loser.
Before anyone asks, yes, I am retired, no I am not old enough for my state pension, but I look forward to getting it in just over 3 years, mainly because I have a full set of NI contributions and, in my opinion, I have earned it.
It's an idiotic electoral bribe which successive politicians have been too cowardly to address.
States funds should be directed at relieving genuine hardship
The difficulty with the lock is that the only flexibilty left is to raise the pension age which further punishes the working population.
States funds should be directed at relieving genuine hardship
The difficulty with the lock is that the only flexibilty left is to raise the pension age which further punishes the working population.
Mr.Chips said:
dmahon said:
Is it reasonable to set fire to our economy to protect the elderly, damage the life prospects of everyone else including our children, then completely insulate them from any financial impacts?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ris...
“Rishi Sunak says he is ready to hand £4bn to pensioners next year to keep his “triple lock” pledge, despite rejecting a Covid catch-up plan for schools as too expensive.
The bounce-back from the pandemic has pushed average wage rises close to 6 per cent – which, under the controversial rule, would then become the increase in the state pension.”
Yes, it is reasonable! Most of the people this applies to rely on their state pensions to survive. They won’t all have a great workplace pensions and need the triple lock to ensure that the state pension keeps up with inflation etc.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ris...
“Rishi Sunak says he is ready to hand £4bn to pensioners next year to keep his “triple lock” pledge, despite rejecting a Covid catch-up plan for schools as too expensive.
The bounce-back from the pandemic has pushed average wage rises close to 6 per cent – which, under the controversial rule, would then become the increase in the state pension.”
The young people at school will catch up with what they have missed and when they start work they will be at the start of their earning potential. To punish the elderly by dumping the triple lock, when they have worked for a lifetime would be a crappy thing to do, not to mention a guaranteed vote loser.
Before anyone asks, yes, I am retired, no I am not old enough for my state pension, but I look forward to getting it in just over 3 years, mainly because I have a full set of NI contributions and, in my opinion, I have earned it.
Just look at your full set of NI contributions. It is a pittance and does not come remotely close to funding your retirement or any of the other loosely connected NI costs.
This is of course unsustainable especially with low inflation. There is not pot that follows a person.
A wholesale change is required but would take 30 years to implement and no government has the courage to risk the rash of the elctorate.
oddman said:
It's an idiotic electoral bribe which successive politicians have been too cowardly to address.
States funds should be directed at relieving genuine hardship
The difficulty with the lock is that the only flexibilty left is to raise the pension age which further punishes the working population.
Good in principle, but given incompetence of successive governments it’s probably safer just to give all pensioners the same amount of money.States funds should be directed at relieving genuine hardship
The difficulty with the lock is that the only flexibilty left is to raise the pension age which further punishes the working population.
I say this as someone with affluent parents who was forced to take a university grant and free tuition fees because the means tested system insisted that I was an orphan
Edited by survivalist on Thursday 17th June 21:58
oddman said:
It's an idiotic electoral bribe which successive politicians have been too cowardly to address.
States funds should be directed at relieving genuine hardship
The difficulty with the lock is that the only flexibilty left is to raise the pension age which further punishes the working population.
It is the system we have and without some sort of individual fund that follows a person through their working life there is no alternative.States funds should be directed at relieving genuine hardship
The difficulty with the lock is that the only flexibilty left is to raise the pension age which further punishes the working population.
No one can live off the state pension.
The minimum wage would need increasing substantially and compulsory pension saving mandated. The reduction in company taxes would need to be massive.
Complicated isn't it?
Mr.Chips said:
Yes, it is reasonable! Most of the people this applies to rely on their state pensions to survive. They won’t all have a great workplace pensions and need the triple lock to ensure that the state pension keeps up with inflation etc.
The issue is they are effectively getting higher pay rises than the workers who pay their pensions, as they either get the same rise or better. Which is not exactly fair. Even more so given the future generations will not have such long retirement ages, such good contributions and will need to take the risk on personally instead of it being on the employer. NRS said:
The issue is they are effectively getting higher pay rises than the workers who pay their pensions, as they either get the same rise or better. Which is not exactly fair. Even more so given the future generations will not have such long retirement ages, such good contributions and will need to take the risk on personally instead of it being on the employer.
They are also getting a pay rise when half of the private sector have been buggered financially and kids have had a year taken away from them all to protect the elderly. I think the headline of £4 billion increment for pensioners and £1 billion for school kids is absolutely immoral with this context. It’s a massive electoral bribe and everyone knows it. No government dares touch it.
If the triple lock didn’t exist, what would be the argument for its introduction? Would anyone be making that argument?
What is so special about the the state pension specifically that makes it worthy of a triple lock, but no other state benefits are? Not veterans’ pensions, not benefits paid to disabled children, not school spending, not anything.
Why is 2.5% such a magic number? Why not 3%? Or 4%? Or 0.5%? Or any other number.
Inflation linkage is sensible. Inflation or growth linkage is defensible. The highest of inflation, growth, or *some random number dreamed up 20 years ago*….absolutely nonsensical.
If the triple lock didn’t exist, what would be the argument for its introduction? Would anyone be making that argument?
What is so special about the the state pension specifically that makes it worthy of a triple lock, but no other state benefits are? Not veterans’ pensions, not benefits paid to disabled children, not school spending, not anything.
Why is 2.5% such a magic number? Why not 3%? Or 4%? Or 0.5%? Or any other number.
Inflation linkage is sensible. Inflation or growth linkage is defensible. The highest of inflation, growth, or *some random number dreamed up 20 years ago*….absolutely nonsensical.
Mr.Chips said:
Yes, it is reasonable! Most of the people this applies to rely on their state pensions to survive. They won’t all have a great workplace pensions and need the triple lock to ensure that the state pension keeps up with inflation etc.
The young people at school will catch up with what they have missed and when they start work they will be at the start of their earning potential. To punish the elderly by dumping the triple lock, when they have worked for a lifetime would be a crappy thing to do, not to mention a guaranteed vote loser.
Before anyone asks, yes, I am retired, no I am not old enough for my state pension, but I look forward to getting it in just over 3 years, mainly because I have a full set of NI contributions and, in my opinion, I have earned it.
Ensure the state pension keeps up with inflation? If that’s your argument, what on earth have wage increases/2.5% got to do with that? Almost all increases since the triple lock have been inflation plus. Stopping the triple lock doesn’t punish them - it just stops them from having greater pay increases than working people. How can you possibly argue the opposite. The young people at school will catch up with what they have missed and when they start work they will be at the start of their earning potential. To punish the elderly by dumping the triple lock, when they have worked for a lifetime would be a crappy thing to do, not to mention a guaranteed vote loser.
Before anyone asks, yes, I am retired, no I am not old enough for my state pension, but I look forward to getting it in just over 3 years, mainly because I have a full set of NI contributions and, in my opinion, I have earned it.
Saying kids ‘will catch up’ is a special kind of ignorance. How do you expect them to do that? Magic?
ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:
Ensure the state pension keeps up with inflation? If that’s your argument, what on earth have wage increases/2.5% got to do with that? Almost all increases since the triple lock have been inflation plus. Stopping the triple lock doesn’t punish them - it just stops them from having greater pay increases than working people. How can you possibly argue the opposite.
Saying kids ‘will catch up’ is a special kind of ignorance. How do you expect them to do that? Magic?
Pretty much my position on it. Pensions should increase to maintain the buying power they give, but having that increase be on a metric so much better than the workers whose taxes are paying for it get isn't really right, especially when a lot of them suspect they'll get a worse deal when their turn rolls around.Saying kids ‘will catch up’ is a special kind of ignorance. How do you expect them to do that? Magic?
CoolHands said:
What - it’ll be worse when I get there so you shouldn’t have anything decent?
One reason for increasing above cpi is so you are improving people’s standard of living. Your argument(s) is they could afford bread and water in 1952 how dare they want it to ever be anything better?
How do you think people’s standards of living is going to fare when the state pension fund is dry in 2033 (the current estimate). One reason for increasing above cpi is so you are improving people’s standard of living. Your argument(s) is they could afford bread and water in 1952 how dare they want it to ever be anything better?
How do you think people’s standards of living will increase when it currently takes the average salary of 3 working adults to fund a single state pension?
What has 1952 got to do with the triple lock, which was introduced in 2010? Who is talking about only being able to afford bread?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 18th June 06:32
dmahon said:
The bounce-back from the pandemic has pushed average wage rises close to 6 per cent – which, under the controversial rule, would then become the increase in the state pension.”
I bet if we looked at what the real rate of price inflation was it wouldn't exactly be small either.And if we want to strip morally bankrupt concepts from the benefit system I can think of some higher up the list than targeting the (taxable) income of pensioners.
Nickgnome said:
I'm retired but consider that affluent pensioners should be taxed more. In reality i do not need it.
I think I get £750/month state pension so not remotely enough to live off.
Many pensioners live off this and a few other top ups. For them it is exiting not living.
Let's say average household bills of £2K a month of which £900 is mortgage. The mortgage is paid off by the time you retire and so you that is £1,100 a month. The £750 a month isn't that far short of that and cash savings, private pensions, or downsizing to release funds could bridge the gap for the vast majority. Added to which are potential cost savings. No commute, one car rather than two, etc.I think I get £750/month state pension so not remotely enough to live off.
Many pensioners live off this and a few other top ups. For them it is exiting not living.
I think saying £750 isn't remotely enough to live on, mortgage free, does rather depend on lifestyle expectations.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff