To feel mean thinking it's reasonable for the pension triple lock to be broken?

[BendyTrendy]

Tricky one because our state pensions are lower than the rest of the EU, but also the largest area of welfare spending (at about 42% of the welfare budget).

Still, on balance, I think it's reasonable to break the triple lock under the circumstances of both Brexit and Covid recovery.

Can the country justify an 8% rise to the state pension under the circumstances? Is the triple lock on pensions sustainable? I feel mean even asking the questions, but tough choices must be made.

Boris Johnson signals 'triple lock' on pensions could be broken amid estimates of 8% rise

State pension predicted to rise by 8%

Rishi Sunak hints at suspension to pension triple lock

Tough one.

I’d rather the money went to younger working families than pensioners. And I’d be happy for an increase in my tax to pay for it.

@jasjas1973

“But i think the biggest scandal is cutting UC by £20 per week, thats going literally going to kill people.”

I wonder how many pensioners supported the UC £20 per week cut, but will moan about losing the 8% increase in state pension?

Pensioners cannot reasonably expect compassion on the triple lock front if they don’t speak up about others such as the UC £20 cuts.

It does feel like divide and conquer politics, but there needs to be some balance.

@ChiefInspectorParker

I don’t know whether the narrative of what’s ‘affordable’ helps these discussions. Obviously governments have to prioritise spending, but running an economy isn’t like running a household or even a business - there are costs and benefits to all spending, whether public sector pay, pensions, benefits, etc.

I don’t think pensioners should get an anomalous 8% rise, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the triple lock should be broken once and for all.

Inflation will hit pensioners hard.

I would be in favour of freezing the state pension for higher rate taxpayers as pp suggested. Also introducing a mechanism whereby better-off pensioners can waive their winter fuel allowance or withdrawing it from higher rate taxpayers, and potentially also a mechanism for better-off pensioners to waive their right to free prescriptions.

Although Labour are in a right mess, demographics overall aren’t moving in the Tories’ favour and if I was them I’d be wondering whether it was worth the risk of breaking the triple lock, on the basis that their core elderly supporters are unlikely to vote for another party any time soon. However I wouldn’t do that and decimate planning regulations There is a discussion to be had about the future of the state pension with a growing elderly population and some radical thinking about how things might look in the not too distant future.

That’s more sensible.

Child benefit stopped for higher earning families because they were deemed to not need it as much.

Same should apply to pensioners.

This Tory government can afford to upset this demographic and make sound arguments based on the setback caused by the plague. The triple lock is unsustainable for an ageing population.

Agreed @ChiefInspectorParker

My ILs have multiple buy-to-lets and FIL receives a final salary pension the likes of which will never be seen by my generation or others.

I really don't understand why they receive benefits (and all the other stuff like winter fuel allowance) when the squeeze is on UC, NHS pay etc.

Surely the place to start is identifying who doesn't actually need this support?

There is no way they'd vote anything other than Tory

Nice. How about you all think about the fact that after a lifetime of work pensioners deserve a decent pension. It may be the largest slice of the social security budget but it's the benefit that you pay for. All your working life. If you don't have 35 years of contributions then you get a reduced pension. And on the new way of calculating, if you get the full state pension of £179pw then you don't get any pension credit.
It's paid for. The age to qualify has already been moved several times. It's taxable income. If you have to get a job to top up your pension then you still pay your tax and NI.
I can't believe people are saying that pensioners shouldn't have a decent income. You must have realised by now, that if you take from one group of poor people the resulting 'savings' do not ever go to another poor group.
Take money from those at the top, stop spending billions on war and vanity projects and we might get some semblance of society back. But take from pensioners? No.

@talkingdeadscot

Nice. How about you all think about the fact that after a lifetime of work pensioners deserve a decent pension. It may be the largest slice of the social security budget but it's the benefit that you pay for. All your working life. If you don't have 35 years of contributions then you get a reduced pension. And on the new way of calculating, if you get the full state pension of £179pw then you don't get any pension credit. It's paid for. The age to qualify has already been moved several times. It's taxable income. If you have to get a job to top up your pension then you still pay your tax and NI. I can't believe people are saying that pensioners shouldn't have a decent income. You must have realised by now, that if you take from one group of poor people the resulting 'savings' do not ever go to another poor group. Take money from those at the top, stop spending billions on war and vanity projects and we might get some semblance of society back. But take from pensioners? No.

@talkingdeadscot you can’t deny there’s a problem that needs solving. The triple lock is unsustainable for an ageing population.

A means tested pension sounds more reasonable.

Take away the entitlement from those who don’t need the state benefit and there’s more to go around to those who do need it.

Judging from DM: many well-to-do pensioners are anti-benefits so I’m sure they will be happy to put their money where their mouth is.

I’d rather the money went to younger working families than pensioners
Why? Young working families have control over increasing their income. Two people working FT will earn enough to have a decent life. They might struggle for a couple of years before childcare heps kick in, but if they stop at 2 kids, it will be manageable.

Most pensioners have no option but to accept their fate. Some do continue to work, some by choice because they can and enjoy the interaction, but some don't have a choice and it seems so wrong.

I would definitely rather my taxes to go to them than young working families where only one partner works or work PT by choice.

As for making it mean tested, that's what will happen before you know it. It does hurt to think that my OH and I have worked FT all our lives, paid a lot in NI all this time and we will likely get nothing from the state pension, when those who have opted for a much easier life will get the reward, but that's how it is.

@BendyTrendy There's a flaw in the clarity of your voting preferences!
Is it AIBU to feel mean, or AIBU to think the triple lock should be disregarded?

[quote DoubleTweenQueen]@BendyTrendy There's a flaw in the clarity of your voting preferences!
Is it AIBU to feel mean, or AIBU to think the triple lock should be disregarded?[/quote]
AIBU for feeling mean.

The issue about triple lock is the discussion issue

I agree that it’s an excessive rise op and I don’t feel mean about it. No one else is getting such a huge rise and this is not the time for it when we are effectively borrowing to fund it.

Pensions are universal benefits so there is no argument that pensioners are poor or especially deserving. State pensions are not means tested so a lot of this money is going to those who are already pretty wealthy in terms of both assets and income. All sorts of people who receive state benefits have paid into the system and/or are still paying into it so that’s not an argument either.

Basically the tories are attempting to win votes by giving borrowed government money to elderly people, many of whom are very wealthy indeed. This debt will need to be paid back by future generations with interest.

It's a very difficult situation.

Yes state pensions are very low compared to other countries but private pensions are higher. Although that will be changing.

We can't really burden more tax on the younger population but I believe pensions costs are supposed to be unsustainable with the ageing population. We need to look at other tax revenue but everyone wants someone else to pay.

Also our pensions are not particularly mean by european standards if you look at the minimum contributions required and years paid. Ireland for example has a requirement for 48 years contributions for a full pension (only 35 in Uk) and their pension is only a little more than the uk state pension.

good point @CayrolBaaaskin I also believe we should make all subsidies eg prescriptions, travel etc means tested eg for those who get pension credit.

Why? Young working families have control over increasing their income. Two people working FT will earn enough to have a decent life. They might struggle for a couple of years before childcare heps kick in, but if they stop at 2 kids, it will be manageable.

what control do you people have over higher housing costs, higher pension costs & wage stagnation?

Workplace pensions were also much more generous back in the day. I get a letter every two years about how mine is being slashed a bit further! Defined benefit and final salary schemes are as rare as hens teeth now. Auto-enrolment and those GOV.UK adverts says it all about how we are expected to provide for our own retirements.

@BendyTrendy

Of course there's a problem, I'm not denying that. We did have more of a means tested system where there was the state pension which everyone paid for and got when they retired. There were different rates, like the married woman who paid a lower stamp got a smaller pension. If you were a couple, then you got the couples rate however much you paid in. Poorer pensioners then claimed pension credit on top of their basic state pension.
It's only in the last couple of years this has changed so that there's one basic state pension. You get the full pension with 35 years of stamps, it's reduced if you didn't pay the full 35 years, right down to nothing if you paid less than 10 years. So we did have more of a means tested system until a couple of years ago.
Not only that, but the age of retirement has moved, for women it's moved 7 years and is set to move further. For men it's moved 2 years and set to move further.
Where has all the money already 'saved' gone? I'm 59 and already have 40 years contributions. There are many like me.
Whether or not pensions are means tested, cut or we're made to wait longer will make no difference to anyone else at all.
The poor will still be poor (because that's the system) work will still pay sh*t wages, housing will still be expensive and there will always be someone better off than you.
They've already cut sickness benefits, unemployment benefits, in work benefits and child benefit. Has any of that made anyone better off? Has the govt suddenly announced that we've all paid enough and our sacrifices have meant we no longer have to cut any more? No. Because the point is to decimate the social security system like every other service we had in order to create instability and to make sure we accept whatever crumbs crap jobs offer rather than claim benefits. Then we end up knackered and probably sick, looking forward to a few measly years on a measly pension. We truly are part of the US if this is the best we can do.

Also, it is fair to count pension credits, as many are entitled to claim this in addition to the state pension.

If they keep the triple lock then they need measures that will target more affluent pensioners. A fairer way of taxing property, for a start.

We have decades of low interest rates to prop up the housing ladder but that makes saving so much harder.

Where has all the money already 'saved' gone? I'm 59 and already have 40 years contributions. There are many like me. Whether or not pensions are means tested, cut or we're made to wait longer will make no difference to anyone else at all.

Your pensions are not put into a pot & saved for you. You can pay for those above you & those younger than you pay for yours.

I'm in my 30s & have paid NI since I was 17, I can't stop paying at 52 & no doubt my pension age will move further out.

Perhaps inflation would be less if the government acted to stop those increasing prices or having rip-off extra charges.
Perhaps inflation would be less if there were not shortages of some things because of difficulties in having enough HGV drivers and people in agriculture, because of Brexit.
Perhaps any pension rise would be easier to fund if tax avoidance by large transnational companies especially in tech was stopped.
Perhaps any pension rise would be easier to fund if the government clawed back profits made from Covid such as on the wasteful inefficient track and trace scheme.

@vivainsomnia

I’d rather the money went to younger working families than pensioners Why? Young working families have control over increasing their income. Two people working FT will earn enough to have a decent life. They might struggle for a couple of years before childcare heps kick in, but if they stop at 2 kids, it will be manageable.

Most pensioners have no option but to accept their fate. Some do continue to work, some by choice because they can and enjoy the interaction, but some don't have a choice and it seems so wrong.

I would definitely rather my taxes to go to them than young working families where only one partner works or work PT by choice.

As for making it mean tested, that's what will happen before you know it. It does hurt to think that my OH and I have worked FT all our lives, paid a lot in NI all this time and we will likely get nothing from the state pension, when those who have opted for a much easier life will get the reward, but that's how it is.

Families with children are providing for the next generation. Do you disagree with that?

Money going towards younger working families is investing in the future of the country, which in turn supports the welfare budget (of which pensioners benefit the most from).

I appreciate it must feel unfair if pensions becomes means tested, but life is not fair. A lot of people are poor out of circumstances, not choice. Check your privileges.

It’s insulting to think a partner working PT is just for choice. If they have children it is reasonable that those children get quality time with their parents. That’s important for the nurture and health of our future generations. Money is important, but it’s not all about money either.

The current favouritism for pensioners is political. Covid has perhaps shown that it’s not natural or healthy for civilised society. Nature has pretty much told us that we are prioritising the wrong demographic in society, just for political reasons. We will inevitably lose the fight against nature.

Our youth feel the most neglected, because they’re not as useful politically.

If pensioners reading the DM spoke up against the injustices done to the youth, like cutting the UC by £20 a week, then they might earn some compassion for losing their triple lock.

Pensioners can’t on one hand complain that they’ve lost their triple lock if on the other hand they’ve supported other demographics losing their support income or stood by and done nothing.

Wasn't it a manifesto promise to keep the triple lock ? Not that it counts for anything.

'Tricky', OP? You mean old people starving or freezing to death would be . . . awkward?

We could afford to give people decent pensions were it not for successive Conservative governments screwing the economy to suit their cronies.