Triple lock remains

[triplelock]

Name changed as I understand this probably won't be a popular opinion.

AIBU to think it's not exactly fair for the working population to have their tax thresholds frozen for 4 years while pensions get to keep their triple lock?

I understand some pensioners struggle on the state pension alone. But a lot of families also struggle on minimum wage.

For what it's worth I think the triple lock should remain (although it will have to go at some point). I think we should have a wealth tax to help pay for covid and massively increase inheritance tax.

@Blackberrycream

Any government whose instinct is to renege on previous plans and offer a derisory increase to essential public workers who have battled keep the country afloat during the pandemic

Earns the "nasty" epithet.

@ChameleonClara

The basic tax rate of 33% was not a negative if revenue raised was deployed in a way that delivered positives either.

Low UK tax rates drive state underinvestment.

The use of taxation is completely irrelevant. The relevance is the ordinary people had a third of their wages deducted at source on top of the NI that provided the basis for their pensions. It sounds as if you’ be happy for your tax to increase 13% to fund an NHS pay rise?

@Alsohuman

I would prefer a more European tax/spend model yes.

Suggesting a 13% tax rise is needed for the NHS pay rise alone is obviously ridiculous! If you're in favour of low tax, low spend economies that's fine but you should use realistic numbers.

I have no argument with support for nurses. I do object to this being used as another excuse to attack pensioners.

I don't agree with the triple lock. For those saying that I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face - I'd be astonished if the SP exists by my retirement age (2053), let alone the triple lock.

I used to work in pension credit administration and saw a lot of pensioner poverty, which does need to be tackled. I'm totally in favour of measures which aim to reduce poverty, regardless of age category. I know that removing the triple lock wouldn't mean that the money got redistributed to child poverty measures, but that doesn't mean that the distribution of resources can never be scrutinised for fear of ageism.

I admit to being biased here - my (boomer) parents retired at 50 on very generous state pensions and after selling their house at over 2,000% profit, but insisted that life was no more difficult for my generation and that the only thing in our way was our habit of buying sandwiches. Classic Daily Mail tripe, basically. I do realise that not every boomer thinks this way but it's a fairly persistent narrative, and has become really grating.

Private pensions, I should say - not state pensions! Those are yet to come.

@pinkearedcow - I think we have borrowed a huge amount of money to pay for Covid which will need to be paid back. When we are effectively cutting NHS wages, I don’t think it’s the right time to give an above inflation increase to rich pensioners (before anyone says all pensioners are not rich, well obviously but state pensions are not means tested and go to rich and poor alike).

@ChameleonClara
They had trials yes but they are factually on average better off then their children and grandchildren will be.
They are not factually better off than their children, the standard of living today is far higher than it was in the 60s and 70s.

Suggesting a 13% tax rise is needed for the NHS pay rise alone is obviously ridiculous!

It was meant to be. 🙄

[quote Brahumbug]@ChameleonClara
They had trials yes but they are factually on average better off then their children and grandchildren will be.
They are not factually better off than their children, the standard of living today is far higher than it was in the 60s and 70s.[/quote]
Yes, and they are alive and benefitting from that higher standard of living

Yes, and they are alive and benefitting from that higher standard of living

So are younger generations 🤷‍♀️ Your point is?

@Alsohuman

Yes, and they are alive and benefitting from that higher standard of living

So are younger generations 🤷‍♀️ Your point is?

Those currently in their 20s are not expected to have equivalent wealth/purchasing power in their 60s as those who are 60 now. That is the point.

Unless you have a crystal ball that’s pointless speculation. Do you seriously think anyone buying their first house for £20k their 20s in 1980 thought it would be worth 14 times more 40 years later? Anything could happen to the economy over the next four decades.

@Alsohuman

Her mum stopped work for over ten years while she was little then went back part time

She probably had no choice. There was no maternity leave and very little childcare available, most women stopped work until their kids started school. Women who had careers were in a minority, most had jobs. Yes, university education was free but only 5-7% of the population had it. It was subsidised by the 95% who didn’t.

It’s impossible not to recognise that it’s difficult for young people now and it would be foolish not to acknowledge that the cost of housing in particular is a major issue but that wasn’t manufactured by boomers who have watched the “value” of their house rise with some bemusement. The blame for that lies fairly and squarely with right to buy and buy to let.

Working hard isn’t generational. In every generation some people bust their arses and others don’t. The real injustice in our society is that some of the people who work the hardest are those who are paid the least.

One major factor in the increase in house prices is the amount available for mortgages. In the 70s mortgages usually came from building societies who all charges very similar interest rates, linked to the bank rate that changed every month. Fixed rates were very unusual. The amount you could borrow was closely linked to your salary, usually 3 times the annual salary of one applicant, plus once times the secondary applicant.This kept a cap on house prices. But to let was rare, but took off in the late 90s when the gov changed the way private pensions were taxed, I think they started taxing dividends, which resulted in some people putting their money into property instead of pension funds. The big increase in house prices, outside of the SE occurred during the Blair boom years, ending with the crash in 2008. Our house in Lancashire has still not got back to its 2007 valuation.

@Alsohuman

Unless you have a crystal ball that’s pointless speculation. Do you seriously think anyone buying their first house for £20k their 20s in 1980 thought it would be worth 14 times more 40 years later? Anything could happen to the economy over the next four decades.

The structures are completely different, and in my view it is possible to look forward to some extent, but... I can sense we are talking at cross purposes, so let's agree to disagree, I often CBA to argue!

@trixies how did your parents retire at 50 with "very generous state pensions?" Did you mean occupational pensions?

@trixies

Private pensions, I should say - not state pensions! Those are yet to come.

@rabbitcow

as previously corrected.

Lincslady53 Wed 10-Mar-21 21:06:44

'But to let was rare, but took off in the late 90s when the gov changed the way private pensions were taxed.'

The reason the 'buy-to-let' market took off in the 1990s were

1. the Housing and Planning Act, 1986 - which enabled short term tenancies to be offered, and tenants to be more easily evicted. Before this act if you rented a house, you had a lifelong tenancy, and it was virtually impossible for landlords to evict you. So no-one wanted to rent out houses.
2. The abolition of 'rent controls' in 1989 - before this act, rents levels in the private sector were set by local councils, and tenants could go to the 'rent control officer' and get their rents reduced. There was simply no profit to be made from renting out houses.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@pinkearedcow - I think we have borrowed a huge amount of money to pay for Covid which will need to be paid back. When we are effectively cutting NHS wages, I don’t think it’s the right time to give an above inflation increase to rich pensioners (before anyone says all pensioners are not rich, well obviously but state pensions are not means tested and go to rich and poor alike).[/quote]
But we haven't borrowed money like a private individual with a personal loan.
Government finances don't work like that.
We shouldn't be cutting NHS wages.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@pinkearedcow - I think we have borrowed a huge amount of money to pay for Covid which will need to be paid back. When we are effectively cutting NHS wages, I don’t think it’s the right time to give an above inflation increase to rich pensioners (before anyone says all pensioners are not rich, well obviously but state pensions are not means tested and go to rich and poor alike).[/quote]
Yes they do go to rich and poor alike, the rich pay tax on them and the poor are entitled to means tested benefits like pension credit and all the automatic associated benefits that are attached to it, pensioners on only a couple of £ a week over pension credit amount still have to go through means test procedures to get the same benefits, and pensioners on the basic rate with a small private pension have them added together so they pay tax if over personal allowance, something which BTW does not happen with working age benefits like UC as these benefits are never added to any other income and taxed

@DynamoKev we have borrowed money and we have to pay it back. That is how government finances work. You can't just print money to pay it all off if that's what you think.

@Oldsu - some working age benefits are subject to tax like job seekers allowance. In any event, times are tough and we shouldn't be giving money to those who don't need it when we are cutting wages for NHS staff in real terms.

we shouldn't be giving money to those who don't need it when we are cutting wages for NHS staff in real terms

We’re not. Those who don’t need it will be paying it back via income tax.

YANBU - we will never have the privileges of that generation. We’ll be lucky to be able to retire, let alone have (in some cases) full salary final pensions from 60 (F) and 65 (M). All generations have times of hardship, but no one can surely doubt that, on the whole, that generation, with the way house prices rocketed, etc., have done very well financially. Most of the ones I know will openly admit that. The sad thing about this particular situation, is that the young and even the yet unborn, sacrificed (and will continue to sacrifice) to protect them and they will bear little part in helping with that.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@DynamoKev we have borrowed money and we have to pay it back. That is how government finances work. You can't just print money to pay it all off if that's what you think.

@Oldsu - some working age benefits are subject to tax like job seekers allowance. In any event, times are tough and we shouldn't be giving money to those who don't need it when we are cutting wages for NHS staff in real terms.[/quote]
Not quite true JSA is taxable when its contribution based which you get for 6 months, once this period is over income based JSA is the standard allowance part of Universal credit which is not taxed.