Pensions to rise with inflation - but what about working people???

[doris9034]

BBC Website: "Liz Truss and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt jointly agreed to guarantee that the state pension rises with inflation next year - thereby maintaining the "triple lock" - ahead of PMQs this morning, Downing Street says.
In a huddle with reporters after PMQs, the prime minister's official spokesman said the decision reflected the "unique position" of pensioners who are "unable to increase their earnings through work"

But I - and millions of others - are also unable to "increase our earnings through work" because we are in the middle income bracket, our employers do not have the capacity to raise our earnings in line with inflation and we don't qualify for any state related benefits.

So, whilst I 100% don't begrudge the helping of pensioners (many of whom are probably among the better off anyway), I can't help but feeling a bit annoyed that it always seems to be the ordinary working person / family that never gets any respite from the ever increasing cost of living.

And we haven't had such low birth rates

Yes it has. And it’s entirely logical if you think about it. I hate anecdote but my parents and grandparents were pensioners simultaneously. If I live long enough my son and I will be too - there’s only 21 years between us.

The postwar birth rate bulge has existed for the last 77 years. It was entirely predictable that we’d all be collecting our pensions so why did no government in that time plan for it? It’s not bloody rocket science. Don’t blame us, blame long dead politicians!

Here's the link

www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2015/12/DW-slides-for-website.pdf

The first graph shows the net amount paid in or out over your lifetime and how this has changed between 1997 and 2008.

What you can see is that anyone now aged between 0 and 5 will pay in significantly more than they will ever get out. Those aged over 50 start to get more out than they have paid in (the difference paid for by those under 50). This peaks to those. Ow aged in their late 60s and 70s. The much older 85 plus will still receive more than they have paid but to a lesser extent.

In short it shows that young people will pay for the older generation without getting the same level of benefits.

Likewise, there's only 21 years between my mum and I, but I was 43 when DS was born. And we started his pension when he was about 5!

In short it shows that young people will pay for the older generation without getting the same level of benefits.

Is this in dispute? I thought it was a fact?

Thing is today's pension forms the basis of our future pension, so in everyone's interest for it to go up

No it wasn't. State pensions and other benefits are relatively recent, basically the last few decades. There wasn't anything comparable 100 years ago.

Not really. It's highly unlikely that today's teenagers will qualify for automatic non means test state pension. Successive governments have been pushing people to make their own pension arrangements, leading to the introduction of workplace pensions a few years ago. Once most people have private pensions, then the state pension will inevitably be means tested, probably by means of extending pension credits and not increasing state pensions with inflation at all, until they become virtually worthless.

Thing is today's pension forms the basis of our future pension, so in everyone's interest for it to go up

Not if the age keeps moving out

I think it will be means tested in the next 20 years

There wasn't anything comparable 100 years ago

The old age pension was introduced in 1909. The state pension in its current form has existed for 74 years.

Life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last 100 years, although healthy life expectancy less so. In the 1950s it was about 68 whereas it's been around 80 since 2010.

It’s falling again now.

and yet they are looking at increasing state pension age to 69...

Who’s they?

Some boomers have had the pension age changed, the second change with very little warning for many (mainly women born in 1953/54) Not to mention the people who paid into pensions and got nothing or very little, Maxwell and the Mirror pensions or the pension misselling of the 80s.

Lots of us started fulltime work at 15 but 18 or 21 seems more the norm now.

You can pick bits to suit all sides.

I was paying for WWII and Slave Reparations from the 1830s, so I was paying for the slave repatations from 15 to 62. Of course I was also funding the pensions for previous generations.

I was paid a pittance in the 60s and 70s as I was a woman, maybe thank women my age for fighting so you got equal pay.

I can well believe the statistic about mortgages in the 70s. I bought my first house in 1973 and within months I'd had 3 percentage increases and we weren't sure if we'd lose the house.

Wasn't life expectancy at certain points in the 20th century skewed because of the high level of young deaths in WWI and WWII.

Who’s they?

the they that normally control these things...

Oh come on! If you’re going to talk about some amorphous, anonymous “they” you’re surely not expecting to be taken seriously.

@ancientgran I'm unsure of your points.

I haven't said that every older person had an excellent pension scheme or no one lost any money (a family member lost a lot through prudential life). Nonetheless schemes are less generous now & state pension age has increased.
You don't need to work full time to pay NI, I have paid since 17 & throughout uni as I like many students worked.
I'm not sure why you fighting for equal pay means we can't discuss the financial implications of an ageing population?!
The 70s also saw record wage growth, which often gets left out of the conversation.

@ancientgran
There was certainly a dip due to the First World War but since 1935 it has been steadily rising.

@Blossomtoes you have really confused me now! The gov of course, did I really need to be that explicit!

"But the increases are under review and could change again. Last week, when asked about the state pension age, Prime Minister Liz Truss did not rule out increasing it in order to help balance the nation’s bookss_."

you’re surely not expecting to be taken seriously.

considering some of your posts, I'm assuming this is irony 😆

I'm in my early 30s and have always had an active interest in politics. 10 years ago I was in the minority in my social circles but now virtually every single person I know has become more invested and active in politics. It's even more noticeable in those younger than me and many I speak to genuinely feel like their futures have been stolen from them by the greed and selfishness of older generations

Ecery single person l know is fully invested and interested in politics, at my great age of 58. They always have been in my circle. I went on zillions of marches in my late 20’s. Things like anti racist marches, anti war marches to make life better for future generations. My sister went to Greenham Common.

Politics isn’t just the perrogitive of the young. Perhaps if they turned out to vote more it might help them a bit more?

Why don’t you just shoot all those old greedy selfish people. Then you can have your utopia?

Why don’t you just shoot all those old greedy selfish people. Then you can have your utopia?

They’d miss the tax we pay.