The Pensions Triple Lock has to go

[Flammkuchen]

When it was introduced, the aim of the Triple Lock was to increase pensions faster than earnings as the state pension was low. The TL has been very successful: pensioners now have a higher standard of living and more disposable income than working families. A pensioner couple each getting the full state pension receive £20k per year, with any private pension income on top.

This is great for them, but it comes with a trade-off. In order to increase pensions by over 10% a year, there is less money to pay nurses, teachers or doctors. Highly skilled public sector workers have low pay and there is a recruitment crisis.

AIBU to think that now that on average pensioners have higher disposable income than those in work, a policy that aims to increase pensioner income by MORE than average earnings - and so keep increasing the income of pensioner households faster than working households - needs to be rethought? Even just linking the state pension to average earnings would be better.

None of the pensioners I know went to university. Both my parents worked all their adult life (well they actually started work at 15 back in the late 50's early 60's), they couldn't afford to buy their own home (the first one was a "tied" cottage and when the landowner decided to sell it, mum and dad were given one of the first council houses to be built in the village), and didn't have FS pensions. "Zero hours" was also a thing during the 60's 70's when (mostly), men would turn up for a job and be sent home again as they weren't needed that day.

They did manage to put a small amount away in later years for their pensions and right up until they died they were paying tax on that ( the combined income including private pensions was 16k a year). When they died the grand total of their "estate" was below the threshold for probate, so hardly a "comfortable" retirement. They both worked damned hard and to think that they and many like them aren't "successful" and 10k should be enough to live on and it's no more than they deserve is also incredibly unfair and offensive IMO.

So you made your choice….can’t moan about it now

Count me in as someone keenly interested in the answer to this question. 😆

If you have got to retirement and have made nothing more of yourself, then a basic income is fine, but not more

What a horrible expression to use about someone 😡😢

In their own homes ( well my 2 anyway) ….my DD has a mortgage with her partner…..my DS has a housing association property…..where did you suppose they were going to live?

I don’t know. DH and I couldn’t have children and we spent many years caring for our respective elderly parents. Now that we are enjoying a comfortable and carefree retirement funded by occupational pensions and one state pension we are apparently scum of the earth!

It's a repulsive attitude. If for some reason you 'have made nothing more of yourself' (which I suspect translates to 'earned lots of money') then 'tough shit, you can starve and freeze to death, that'll teach you.'

You enjoy it @KimberleyClark every last penny of it…..dont listen to the state pension bashers

"A pensioner couple each getting the full state pension receive £20k per year..."

Not all do.

It depends on which year you became eligible to start drawing your state pension. People a few years younger than I am will be receiving a higher weekly rate than I do.

Those who have been self employed may not receive £10K a year in state pension, either.

Wasn't there a thread just like this a few weeks ago?

My point was most people in their 20s can't buy a family home. And social housing is near impossible to get. Your children may have managed but they are not typical.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain - I stand by it. It's about doing something with your life. Honestly, I can't look my kids in the eye and tell them to work towards renting and taking a basic pension at 68. That would be me lying to them in effect that this would be a good life. It would not be. Take the emotion of it, I want my kids to be successful, own a house, have good things. Basic state pension and renting won't give them that. It won't give me that either.

Fuck yes sweetie. And while they are at it stick a broom up their arses so they can sweep the streets at the same time.

Are you aware how much retired people already put back into the economy by providing free childcare, free adult care for disabled or older family members, or by volunteering their time energy and expertise in schools, hospitals, hospices, museums, charity shops, other charitable organisations, food banks etc etc etc. if it wasn’t for volunteers, who are almost all retired people providing services for free then many of these services would disappear completely, or alternatively , completely bankrupt the country in a week if they had to be paid for at a living wage.

If the jobs you mention are available then they should be given to people who need to work to get them out of benefits, reform the benefits system so that working becomes a better prospect than not working, or only working minimal hours. That way you build wealth into society and ensure that people work towards their own economic wellbeing.

Have you ever thought what would happen to bus services if bus companies weren’t getting the subsidies they get from oap bus passes? How places like cafes , libraries, museums, galleries, theatres etc would manage if they didn’t have the grey pound supporting them during the day? Retired people are active members of the economic system, our money and our labour is supporting jobs , communities and institutions that benefit everyone in our society. Your snide references to cruises and dog walking are sadly typical of the ageist culture that unfortunately infects MN.

It is not either/or - for example, giving less to pensioners does not mean that nurses' pay would rise.

I am now drawing pensions: tiny one from work, state pension that is reduced because of child-rearing, and (the bulk of my income) a widow's pension from my late husband's employment (doctor in the NHS). I have a small amount of savings from a downsize. I do not have to worry about heat or eat - my life is fine materially - but my needs are small: no cruises, only me to feed, don't drink etc.

But either I or my OH have paid for these pensions throughout our lives. We have worked hard - indeed very hard indeed as we both worked in public services; we have coped with astronomical interest rates on mortgages and struggled to get our first home; we have met ourselves coming back trying to work and bring up children; we have paid into the pensions so it is reasonable to think that we would have a return on this; just as those in work now are expecting to benefit one day from what they are paying in.

My state pension is small as I had to opt out when the children were little - it was either that or not be able to afford a pushchair. So it is only a small pension upon which the TL operates.

I understand that it must be galling to be a young family working their tripe out while their parents lived in retired comfort, but I have been there too - watching my parents living thus while we were meeting ourselves coming back and paying vast interest rates.

It most certainly needs to go. My mum was boasting about hers the other day and I just looked at her and said, ‘I got 2% this year, and I’m one of the ones paying for this’ She went into a right huff. The ones paying aren’t just faceless in a crowd, they’re real people with real bills. They’re more likely to have mortgages, therefore life insurance. Then childcare bills/maintenance. So much. This topic annoys me so much. My husband’s Nan is a millionaire and the money just goes into the coffers for her not to spend. I expect there’s loads just like that.

Are you aware how much retired people already put back into the economy by providing free childcare, free adult care for disabled or older family members, or by volunteering their time energy and expertise in schools, hospitals, hospices, museums, charity shops, other charitable organisations, food banks etc etc etc. if it wasn’t for volunteers, who are almost all retired people providing services for free then many of these services would disappear completely, or alternatively , completely bankrupt the country in a week if they had to be paid for at a living wage.

That is exactly my situation in a nutshell. I run a community choir, organise events for people in the village, am a school governor, hear children read etc. etc.

Similar threads to this appear every week .Full of false information and a weird pensioner jealousy and envy. Pretty depressing and very sad!

Perhaps it is time to reflect that a society where public services are in effect provided by pensioners because ordinary working people cannot afford them privately, or the government chooses to fund pensions with a triple lock so that there can be food banks is one that has its priorities all wrong.

I have no issue with wanting good things and a good life for yourself and your children. I do have issue with the way you say that if you haven't managed to get those things for whatever reason and you have to fall back on renting and basic pension at 68 then you've 'failed at life,' and are not deserving of help. You don't get to define what failing at life is for anyone else but you - and if those are your only values then that sounds pretty shallow and materialistic, frankly.

Like another poster said, if that's in your book then maybe you need to read another one.

but you have choices….get a better paid job….work more hours…..have less children…..have no children…….you might not like those choices…..but they are there for you to make…..why would your mum boast about a shitty state pension…is she always weird like that?

We can't be talking any men here, they'd have had to be 65 in 1999 in order to claim state pension.

There's a lot to consider.
The vast majority need the state pension and do not have considerable private pensions to live off. Being elderly means you are more vulnerable and likely to need to heat your home for health reasons - something that has become unbelievably expensive compared to say 5 years ago.
There are of course a notable percentage of the boomer generation who are considerably property rich (just from being old enough to have a bought at a time when two adults on a modest salary could buy a big house) and a number of them have final salary pension schemes. No sucessive generation will benefit in the same way from these things.
Maybe the state pension should be restricted or denied where people have considerable other income and assets (lots of issues on how to test this and deprivation of assets etc)
I am late 40s and think my generation will be the one that won't be able to retire. A lot of us will be forceably retired out of the professions but I can see us working part time as consultants or in low paid jobs to top up the tiny state and private pensions.

Unfortunately, in terms of government expenditure, increasing pensions by more than average income, is very much ‘either or’. If the budget for pensions increases, the money is not there for schools and nurses/doctors.

But to repeat again, changing the pension to link to average earnings is not getting rid of the pension. As wages increase, so would the pension.

Maybe the state pension should be restricted or denied where people have considerable other income and assets (lots of issues on how to test this and deprivation of assets etc)

So... how will this work? you take NI off people for several decades and then say sorry, you've been too successful and you have too many assets and too much money so we're withholding that pension you thought you were getting?

Yep, can't see a problem there.

It's going to happen at some point...