Pensions… again

Agree, but the injustice is that income thresholds have been frozen, despite inflation running at 11% for quite a while.

Pensioners also have not benefited from NI cuts but have been hit by energy costs as they tend to use more (inside a lot more than working folk) and feel the cold a lot too.

So whilst it s ok that private pensions will be taxed, its not ok that the state pension is, also very inefficient too.

It always makes me laugh when people say "it's not fair, the government give pensioners what they want, because they're the ones who vote".

There is a simple solution to that, for the younger generations.......they could vote too! But no, they prefer not to, because....well actually I have no idea why. I presume the millions of non-voters have a reason. But you can't complain that the people who exercise their democratic right to vote are statistically more likely to get the government they want.

No, I’m sure it won’t. But the advantageous annual increases which are the best of 3 worlds, might, in time if left unchecked.

£221 is enougn to keep a pensioner ticking over ? for food, utilities, clothing, etc.,

however does not allow for running a car, holidays, treating grandchildren, many
of the now perceived luxuries younger, more able working people take for granted.

It is astonishing how fast savings are eroded or indeed used to supplement a meagre pension.

How are pensioners without a private pension supposed to replace white goods,
carpet, boots, or yearly coach trip, hairdressers, bottle Baileys, birthday presents, etc etc without robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Private pension provision was not always possible, saving hard was the order of
the day for many people of modest means.

I really don't think that the triple lock pension is going to deter many people from making private pension provision if they are able to do so. I can't imagine anyone thinking that £221 per week will give them a luxurious standard of living!

It isn't my goal, but an apparent goal indirect goal of the government to increase state provision. I am not sure that the lack of private provision on the continent is a reason to suppress SP here in the UK.

I do think that there is a point that a theoretical triple locked SP becomes such a good deal that people stop making private provision as a result. Triple lock will need to go as soon as there is a sniff of that.

My view is that SP should provide survival level provision for those that are, at a population level, unable to work any more due to old age. Luxuries are for those that make provision in their working life, as the sacrifice of delayed gratification ultimately pays dividends. But the problem historically, is that SP hasn't even met survival thresholds given rents, food price inflation and so on and a few years of the uber-generous triple lock is slowly but surely bringing the SP to a reasonable level. But indefinite triple lock will dis-incentivise private provision and become unfair to the working taxpayer.

You know how politics works, right? The people getting the mist votes in each constituency get the seat then if they get the most seats that party governs? So if most people didn’t want the triple lock/decent pensions one of the major parties would probably say they didn’t support it? And yet they don’t…

love the moniker, lol, reminds me of my Nan’s self describing, thanks

you take into consideration that UK companies provided separate pensions to their former employees whereas EU employers paid extra into the state system to boost the pensions of their former employees, UK pensions are on average the same as EU pensions.

This is arrant nonsense. Employers pay into the state pension via their NI contribution. They also contribute to private pension schemes. UK state pensions are nowhere close to the EU average.

I'm not sure you understand what paraphrasing actually means but cheerio anyway.

There are many people who can't pay their bills month by month, never mind set up a private pension.

And this has always been the case, to answer the "boomers had it easy and should've made better provision for their old age so that we can cut the state pension now" people. Plus, as others have e pointed out, current pensioners brought up families without the many benefits (including paid maternity leave, childcare support, etc) that are available to people now.

Those earning enough to save right now need to realise that there are many people who can't even keep their houses warm.

@GoodnightAdeline

Centres to help deprived babies and toddlers are a luxury? Yet it’s essential that a healthy number of millionaires get given more money?

As I said in my previous post, adults can choose not to have children. No-one can choose not to get old. There is other support for people with young children, but no alternative for people when they reach retirement age if they are no longer able to work.

You mentioned furlough payments earlier - like millions of people I didn't benefit from any furlough payments; I'm self employed and I worked exactly the same hours as normal right through the pandemic, as did everyone else I work with. I still have the same bills and outgoings as anyone else and even though I've just qualified for my state pension I have no alternative but to continue working as I can't live on the amount I'm getting, even with the increase that you are so opposed to. This is the third time Ive asked you - could you live on £221 per week and nothing else?

I think you are trying to reach a false goal when comparing with the state pensions of European counterparts. If you take into consideration that UK companies provided separate pensions to their former employees whereas EU employers paid extra into the state system to boost the pensions of their former employees, UK pensions are on average the same as EU pensions.

By keeping the triple lock the country will ratchet up to the most generous EU state pension of all, despite the UK pensioners And their employers having paid in far less to the state pensions than their EU counterparts. This is where the UK runs out of money.

Also babies and toddlers grown into teens and young people. There is nothing out there to support this demographic. So maybe when we’re looking at demographics maybe you could stop embellishing reality and look at other groups less likely to pull at the heart strings of readers you’re trying to convince.

So what are you saying? Triple lock should continue indefinitely or cease immediately?

You can only base that statement on the circles you move in.

And quite a few pensioners, like me, have never voted Tory.

It's also not the fault of pensioners if younger people don't vote.

So all babies and toddlers are deprived babies and toddlers and all pensioners millionaires. I can see your strategy instead of explaining your proper workable alternative.

The best thing for deprived babies and toddlers would be a protected benefit system and support for parents to get into work.

OP you are moving the argument sideways with this comment -

They really don’t.

most people IRL hold similar views to me.😂😂

Aye, right.

OP has been a bit unlucky - usually these kinds of threads are a festival of boomer bashing.
You are right that OP ignores any kind of measured debate and keeps ranting soundbites though - maybe training to be an MP or boss of the Post Office.

OP - I am not sure what you are getting from this thread as you ignore any balanced response and just continue with your rant. I expect you were thinking that taking into account the average age of MN posters you would get lots of supportive comments- guess not.