To think we can't afford the triple lock

It. Is. Not. Sustainable.

You're right. We don't all have a victim mentality. I'm responsible for my personal circumstances and I'm content with my modest lot. On threads such as these they always evolve with some posters having a dig at pensioners. Moaners, whingers, worst generation, didn't save enough, didn't work 'hard' enough, didn't have a crystal ball to predict the future ( sarcasm). And most of these claims are from those who probably weren't alive when my age group were starting out. I remember talking to a far younger work colleague about house prices in Bradford in the 60s. She was amazed and asked why we didn't buy a few!
It's a common human reaction to defend oneself.

The current pension system is unsustainable and it's working out exactly as predicted for the last 40 years or so. It's a Ponzi scheme that is guaranteed to fail when demographics change. The problem I have is with pensioner blaming, pensioners just want what they've been promised by government and it's not their fault that governments of all colours have kicked the can down the road.

Fwiw I can't see a problem with losing the 2.5% part, how often will inflation be below 2.5%? And if it is it would be fair for pensioners to keep pace with average pay increase.

Yup, but we did start doing that in the UK with "earnings related" state pension enhancements, firstly the graduated state pension, then SERPS, then S2P, all designed to give an enhanced state pension based on earnings levels.

Unfortunately the incompetent civil servants and politicians cocked it all up, changed it too many times, and finally scrapped the entire system, so those who retired whilst it was still in force get their "enhanced" earnings related state pension, but everyone who retired after the system was scrapped gets just the basic state pension. Just one almightly cock-up that's literally wasted millions of pounds in administration and management, plus untold amounts of wasted civil servant and politician's time.

I suppose in your scenario you could console yourself that your starting point for the state pension will have enjoyed several years of inflation busting increases.

Depends. Far more likely that even the basic state pension will be means tested or scrapped or that the state pension age will continue to increase. So maybe many of today's workers won't be eligible for any state pension at all, or if so, maybe when they're 75!

If the triple lock continues until you retire, then on your retirement you'll benefit from those exact same increases - today's increases - as todays pensioners.

In fact, you'll benefit from this year's, next years etc increases for many more years than those who have already retired! You'll benefit from those increases every year of your whole retirement... whereas they only enjoy them for however many years of retirement they have left.

If the triple lock then stops after you retire, the real-terms value of your pension will start to increase less slowly than if the triple lock was kept. But it will still be higher than if the triple lock is scrapped now.

The only way you lose from the triple lock is if the state pension is completely removed or means tested (and you fail means testing).

So use your vote to stop that!

We can’t afford all these NEETS either. But, we find a way. 👍

So we're going for communism then?

The last time I studied history a couple of attempts to build communism didn't end up well

“Everybody” is a bit of a push.

Agreed. There is a gathering hysteria on MN that state pensions will cease to exist in the next 20 years while simultaneously berating Governments for not daring to tackle the triple lock.
Which is it?

Rather than thinking of a wealth tax as only applying to billionaires that are geographically mobile we need to think more creatively about tax.

Block loopholes and tax all income at the same rate (in bands) whether from earned income or income from rent or assets and make benefits universal.

Reduction in tax collected is a consequence of the increase in inequality. The result is that the asset rich pay reduced tax whilst the asset poor with relatively high incomes pay increased tax and are not eligible for universal support - eg preschool costs. Those who are income poor receive support from the state which goes to the already asset rich - ie housing benefit. Hence the squeezed middle with decent wages and mortgages are pitted against the disabled and unemployed and those on minimum wage receiving state support. The asset rich will not become income earners. They pay reduced tax and receive state support. Tax unearned income.

This is in no way creative thinking about tax.

It’s the same old Who can we tax so we can pay more benefits attitude.

Who are the asset rich?

To all the younger people on the thread. Especially those who think people should just sell the home they raised their family in. Or take in a complete stranger who could be as dodgy as fk.

Do you also think there is no point in paying a mortgage for 25\35 years so we would all be better renting in case people think that in your twilight years you deserve SFA because over the 35 years your house has increased in value?

Because it looks like you want a race to the bottom.

People with a lot of assets.

Why would people get SFA for selling a house with no remaining mortgage?

69% of pensioners have a private pension and 62% have a workplace pension.

The remaining 30% plus should have planned better imo

Jesus. I meant in terms of state pension since people want it means tested.

It’s envy on your part and a complete disregard for older peoples lives. Are you finding it hard to get a job?

The remaining 30% are actual people. Less fortunate than people like me. What do you want to happen to them?

Source?