To think we can't afford the triple lock

I think it should be mandatory for people to pay into a work’s pension and no opting out. I started paying into my Civil Service pension at 18 and now have 24 years of a defined benefit pension (currently at SEO level)

People can’t expect the government to pick up the pieces when they don’t bother to save for their retirement. I’m looking at the state pension being a nice top up to my DB pension rather than my only income.

Disclaimer- I’m fully aware that I’m living in cloud cuckoo land and it would be impossible to stop people from leaving the schemes. Maybe what would be better is having proper pension education in school so young people realise the importance of preparing for your old age.

To add to that, no we can’t afford the triple lock. We’re getting to the point where there aren’t enough workers to support the elderly and the work shy. There needs to be a bigger drive to get people back to work. If Paul Alexander could work as an attorney whilst being confined to an iron lung, there’s a job for most people.

I’m a pensioner and agree it’s time for the triple lock to go.

The triple lock has done its work; it was bought in to bring pensions up after years of decline and that’s been achieved. We do have modest private pensions as well as our state pensions, but that’s the norm nowadays.

(In fact all those concessions for OAPs should probably be knocked on the head too - i really don’t need a discount at the cinema).

In the past couple of years I’ve given my state pension increase and my winter fuel allowance (which REALLY REALLY needs to go, they should have held their ground on that one) to my adult kids. They need it far more than I do.

@Everanewbie
You will only have a top 3% lifestyle if you earn in the top 0.5% of salary or come from a rich family. You can be young or old but wealth is made of earned salary plus what is given to you.

He hardly lives a basic lifestyle. He's in Australia on a four week holiday with a wee week in NZ as he's a LOTR fanatic. He just prioritises.

Plenty of money?

I'm not sure you've noticed that we owe £3 trillion and are paying over £110 billion in interest on that every year.

3 trillion is 3,000 billion. A surplus of 50 billion a year somewhere isn't even going to dent it, it would take three best part of a century to pay it off at that rate even if we stopped borrowing more, which we can't unless we cut spending or find private sector growth.

Yes, but you keep thinking of people that you know, not the situation hundreds of others find themselves in. Your son either lives in a very low value property or had a chunk of it paid off somehow. Fine, some people choose to live a basic lifestyle. But I don't think it is unreasonable for a top 3% earner to live a top 3% lifestyle.

And for the record, I quote south of England, not South East. This incorporates Wessex, Cornwall, Sussex, Kent and so on. I'm not talking central London here.

I know of dirt poor people, and people with more money than I could spend in 10 lifestyles, but I can't use those examples to extrapolate absolutely to wide economic trends.

You're not getting it. My son (30) earns £97.5k. Don't know what his partner earns as I've never asked. But about £38k as she works for a charity for disabled adults.

They are loaded.

They have a mortgage of £70k.

We don't all live in the SE of England which, according to this forum, is a shithole.

But guess what? They don't look down on people who rely on benefits.

You're not getting it. My son (30) earns £97.5k. Don't know what his partner earns as I've never asked. But about £38k as she works for a charity for disabled adults.

They are loaded.

They have a mortgage of £70k.

We don't all live in the SE of England which, according to this forum, is a shithole.

But guess what? They don't look down on people who rely on benefits.

Why do you find facts about tax and who/what pays for public services offensive?

@frozendaisy You're making the mistake of lumping all 'boomers' together. It goes all the way to end of 1964. I'm technically a 'boomer'. When I finished education unemployment was very high, although those graduating a decade earlier had their pick of the jobs. My children didn't get free university education. Nor did my sister's and brother's children, and my siblings are a decade older than me. It's only the very oldest boomers, those born in 40s or at a push very early 50s whose children weren't charged fees. And yes, we did get free university, but there were far fewer university places. Many people of my age just couldn't go to university at all. At least it's much more widely available now.

Yes, but Uni is more widely available because huge numbers of jobs/careers/professions have become graduate only entry. Don't blame youngsters for that. They're just dealing with the hand they've been dealt. Back in the 70s/80s, you could get a good office job with prospects with a handful of O levels, and a professional training job (banking, accountancy, etc) with 3 A levels. Nowadays, try that! Even basic office jobs are often graduate entry, as is most public sector work, i.e. nursing, teaching, social workers, etc etc.

I don't think comparing state pension and salaries of £100k+ is comparing apples with apples.

Firstly, a salary is earned; you are paid an agreed compensation for your labour, skills and expertise. That is not the same as receiving an allowance from the government.

Secondly, those who complain of £100k+ not going that far is in response to an assumption that this is a huge amount of money. The percentage of workers who earn £125,000 or more is 3%, the monthly take home is £6,504., yet the 97th centile house is £680,000. A 95% mortgage on that would cost c. £3,500 pm leaving £3,000 to cover childcare (free hours lost at this salary point), food, council tax, insurance, clothing etc. etc. So, in short, the top 3% of earners can't afford to live like their achievements suggest they should due to property prices childcare, and a tax system that has not taken into account inflation, sneakily using boiled frog tactics to relieve medium to higher earners of their wages.

Thirdly, state pension is what is provided as a starting point. It should be enough to live on. But it shouldn't be, and no one should be under the illusion that it will be, any more than an amount to live a basic day to day existence. If you want more than that, save.

In March 2025, the balance in the NI fund was £79.3 billion, significantly above the required minimum working balance of £24.2 billion. This situation occurs year after year. As at March 2024 the balance was £86.4 billion and as at March 2023, £72.9 billion.

Over the years, various ways have been found to raid the NI Fund, including scrapping a large annual Treasury supplement and by making a regular contribution to the running of the NHS. Despite these attempts to suppress the amounts available for benefits and the state pension, there is a regular annual surplus well in excess of the recommended working balance.

There's money. This constant refrain about lack of funds is ageist bullshit, part of a general drive to set different sectors of the population against one another. Don't fall for it.

Yes, but Uni is more widely available because huge numbers of jobs/careers/professions have become graduate only entry. Don't blame youngsters for that. They're just dealing with the hand they've been dealt. Back in the 70s/80s, you could get a good office job with prospects with a handful of O levels, and a professional training job (banking, accountancy, etc) with 3 A levels. Nowadays, try that! Even basic office jobs are often graduate entry, as is most public sector work, i.e. nursing, teaching, social workers, etc etc.

I don't think comparing state pension and salaries of £100k+ is comparing apples with apples.

Firstly, a salary is earned; you are paid an agreed compensation for your labour, skills and expertise. That is not the same as receiving an allowance from the government.

Secondly, those who complain of £100k+ not going that far is in response to an assumption that this is a huge amount of money. The percentage of workers who earn £125,000 or more is 3%, the monthly take home is £6,504., yet the 97th centile house is £680,000. A 95% mortgage on that would cost c. £3,500 pm leaving £3,000 to cover childcare (free hours lost at this salary point), food, council tax, insurance, clothing etc. etc. So, in short, the top 3% of earners can't afford to live like their achievements suggest they should due to property prices childcare, and a tax system that has not taken into account inflation, sneakily using boiled frog tactics to relieve medium to higher earners of their wages.

Thirdly, state pension is what is provided as a starting point. It should be enough to live on. But it shouldn't be, and no one should be under the illusion that it will be, any more than an amount to live a basic day to day existence. If you want more than that, save.

Who's complaining? That'll be the OP and those agreeing with them. The whingers and moaners on here aren't the pensioners. Some are defending their lot and some have a different POV.

On the contrary many accountancy firms prefer to take school leavers than uni leavers on their accountancy training programs these days.

No, it's for anyone ONLY in receipt of state pension. If you already have another pension or other income, I strongly suspect the personal allowance will be the same as for everyone else. It would be grossly unfair and unacceptable for pensioners to have a higher personal allowance if they have other taxable income. The whole point of a higher personal allowance (or similar exemption) for those ONLY with state pension is to save the time/hassle/admin of HMRC sending them bills each year for a few pounds of tax. No point at all in giving a higher personal allowance for those whose tax affairs are already more complex, i.e. other pensions, investment income etc., who are already either submitting self assessment tax returns or receiving annual tax demands.

Your post was offensive either way.

That's not what they said last night.

At the moment I pay tax because my private and my personal pension are over the tax allowance.

What the news item said was that the £13k pension will be income tax free, implying effectively that £13k becomes the new tax allowance for anyone in receipt of a state pension.

I assumed that's how been clarified.

Which makes the failure to raise the tax allowance even more of a travesty than it was.