To be annoyed pensioners effectively now get a bigger personal allowance

Yes - saving at a point when they don’t need all of their income for a time when their costs will vastly outstrip their income.

Young people being encouraged to use ISAs for longer term investments which should grow significantly more than cash is a good thing. The risk over 20+ years is low, the likely improved returns are significant. The earlier you invest with good return rates the better - hopefully we all understand compounding). Older people otoh who will be investing for a much shorter timescale are obviously the ones who will be more adversely affected by the cap on cash isas (although S&S can I think include safer investments such as bonds and money market funds).

The compulsory retirement age was abolished in 2011. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15127835

It's great that you can work beyond your retirement age and that your DH even with major health issues was also able to work unlike many people these days who'd rather claim PIP and not work.

I'm 55 and plan to go part time age 60 but will absolutely carry on working for as long as possible. I can't imagine potentially 30 years of just pottering around and I think it definitely accelerates cognitive decline and contributes to loneliness in old age.

Who knows what my DC will do when they get to age 60 but I started JSIPPs for them when they were teenagers and they know they need to save for the future. So it's likely they will have the option to stop work if they want to.

No DGC as yet but if we are lucky enough to have DGC one day I'll start JSIPPs and JISAs for them as soon as they're born.

It makes no sense at all to give the basic rate and then claw some back through tax.

However (as someone approaching pension age) I think it’s high time the triple lock was done away with.

And obviously freezing the tax thresholds, particularly the basic rate one is regressive. A basic rate threshold lower than the basic state pension amount is the fundamental problem here.

God us pensioners really are despised aren't we? For the sin of working all our lives and then getting old and wanting a stress free retirement.
We don't have any savings because my dh couldn't work for 10 years before retirement and couldn't claim any benefits. I had 4 part time jobs that just about paid the bills but didn't leave any money for a private pension.
I have been slated on here for not making any provision but then the people who have managed to save for retirement are slated for having pots of money. We can't win can we?
It's not our fault successive government's have ruined the housing market and the economy. All we did was do our best and then get old.

"...what are pensioners saving 20k of cash a year for anyway?!"

They don't have to save 20K every year. They can save up to 20K a year.

There are many reasons why someone who is retired may have surplus cash to invest in any one financial year - inheritances, transferring funds across from non ISA savings accounts, funds released following downsizing etc. Having savings generates additional income from interest. Some may be setting aside funds in case they need to pay for carers or potential care home fees.

Do you know how much it can cost a month for care homes?

There's an interesting thread on FB called Shoestring Retirement, I think. It's illuminating reading. People living life very minimally, on very little cash. Even the homeowners struggle because of cost of repairs etc. Lots of folk with no private pensions at all.
Just a thought.

Pensioners also might want to save for private health care, if you want a new knee or hip replacement, cataracts, things like that, the waiting list is very long as it's not seen as an urgent operation. I have some savings put by myself for this.

what are pensioners saving 20k of cash a year for anyway?!

Care home fees.

Lots of younger people also don't want to risk their money in stocks and shares either but apparently we have to.
This was one of the things that made me most cross about this budget. There is no justification for it at all - what are pensioners saving 20k of cash a year for anyway?!

Or me. I worked for 45 years. I very much doubt I’ll live to be 110.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/pensions/state-pensions/

...And it's this, your National Insurance record – as well as exactly when you reach State Pension age – that dictates how much you'll receive, via one of two types of State Pension:

Reached State Pension age after April 2016?

• The maximum 'new' State Pension is £230.25 a week, though you may get more or less than this depending on your individual circumstances. This comes under the flat-rate 'new' State Pension system, which began on 6 April 2016.

Reached State Pension age before April 2016?

• Under the old scheme, the maximum 'basic' State Pension is £176.45 a week,* *though you may get more or less than this depending on your individual circumstances.

As you see, those of us who reached state pension age before April 2016 don't receive as much as those who reached state pension age after April 2016.

Many pensioners now will spend almost as long retired as employed.

I can't imagine there will be many in that category - certainly not me!

I worked for 51 years from the age of 15 and received the state pension at 66 as did many of my contemporaries.

Explainer from this morning's Times:

People have always been able to work in retirement. I’m an older boomer, my State Pension age was 60, when I left full time employment. I had several part time jobs until I was 64. DH, with major health issues, worked P/T til he was 67. My mum, widowed in her 50s, worked til she was 70. She retired when her even older employer died.

Neither of our DC, or their DW/DH are likely to work after 60. Unlike us, they won’t be relying on their State Pensions. The DGC? Who knows, they are teens, and all sorts of changes will occur during their lifetimes. At least they have the knowledge at their fingertips to help with choices.

All the more reason to ensure we’re not relying on state pension alone. I hate the “poor pensioners” rhetoric, I’ve had it drilled into me from day 1 of working to ensure I paid into a pension, my mum said it was the same for her. It’s not a new concept that state pension alone was never designed to give a comfortable retirement.

Any government is terrified to touch pensioners after the right wing media lost their shit over means testing WFA. The triple lock means pensioner are guaranteed income increases workers haven't had in years - but pensioners are untouchable, so tax tax tax the workers.

It is so silly to condemn different generations. People are born when they are born and this is something we have no control over! Have I been born earlier, I would have been a boomer, had I been born later, I would have been a millennial. I find it very weird to castigate any generation, who are simply a product of their time. Same people, different ages.

It is harder though, much harder.

So much ageism against younger generations

Did you study maths at school? On your numbers people are in retirement for 20 years not 80 and most people do not live to 87 either, so it would be less than 20 years.

Pensioners can work if they want to and are able to. The compulsory retirement age has been abolished.

This is the exact problem. People who never worked their entire lives get gifted pension credit and it's a gateway benefit so those people can claim council tax discounts, free dentistry, wfa to name a few perks. People who get full new state pension standard allowance are actually worse off after perks taken into account, it's scandalous.

It’s not a matter of being “harder.”

It’s a matter of young people now having lifestyle expectations that are off the charts compared to how people led their daily lives 40-50 years ago.

30-somethings today think it’s their right to live like established 60-somethings who have 45+ years in the workforce.

It’s worth pondering this requirement for a degree to get even a foot on a career ladder.
As they said there, nowadays a far higher proportion of pupils go on to further education, meaning far more degrees are floating around, and the entry level minimum floated up accordingly.

The great ‘level playing field’ programme/scam of the Thatcher years, with its bogus foundation of eliminating class privilege (🤣🤣) gave you the right to buy your council house (thereby kicking off the insanity with house prices, not to mention committed the mortal sin of flogging off housing stock required by those who could not buy), and its related (and trickster) promise of a college education for all grossly distorted the remaining labour market, just like the housing one, for those towards the more precarious end things.

Dunno why I am replying really, but the great ripples from that grotesque con trick played on society forty years ago caused a very deep fissure to appear, and certainly split us into ‘before’ and ‘after’ communities, in such a way that comparing the life of a modern 18-year old with the likes of meself in the late 1970s, and certainly me now with their parents, is really not comparing like with like at all.

I mean, these comparisons aren't as nifty as they might appear, since the generations involved operate on unimaginably different foundations. A heavy cultural and social alteration took place; a cursed revolution.
Thus my generation may well be hardwired with concerns and preferences which make bugger all sense to a younger person now, who naturally reads the scene from her own point of view, and judges accordingly. And vice versa, of course

It’s not mere age difference that is the issue, is my point (finally! 😅), it’s that we are each looking at entirely different movies, so to speak.

That's what I said.

Me too - many of my friends had to go out to work as well in the 70’s. My mum apologised to me for refusing to let me go to uni when I was in my 50’s.