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.

I'm sure no-one wants it but it seems inevitable that we will have to pay higher taxes. I would be happy to pay higher taxes if it would guarantee a better NHS but I doubt it would somehow.

The pensioners who get all the above-mentioned benefits are those who get Pension Credit because their income, including State Pension, is so low. If the basic State Pension was enough to live on pensioners wouldn't get extra benefits.

The 'rich' pensioners not only don't get all those extra benefits, but if they have an income above £2942.20 on top of the State Pension they will also be paying tax.

Longleggedgiraffe · Today 22:46
OP, please explain why pensioners must live on less than the minimum wage. I'll wait.

See my earlier post. A pensioner renting a one bed flat in (say) Islington is on an income equivalent to a salary of £34K a year. Hardly the minimum wage.

@Babyroobs so how much tax should people be paying? Young people face ridiculous housing costs, wages that have barely grown in years & tax bands that haven't moved for years.

Why increase only income tax?

It's also not going to work as there aren't enough workers.

pensioners paid taxes before they became pensioners to keep the system going just like you are now

. I would be happy to pay higher taxes if it would guarantee a better NHS but I doubt it would somehow.

staff are leaving already due to pay & conditions & social care is a mess. I don't see how making those workers pay more tax will improve the NHS.

I don't need their money I work and have my own property. It would just be nice for the elderly to sometimes admit the young have been shafted.

pensioners paid taxes before they became pensioners to keep the system going just like you are now

I'm not sure about means testing pensions but can we stop with this nonsense? Plenty of pensioners have taken out far more than they put in. And the issue now is population demographics, there are more over 65s than u15s.

Yes I know it's crazy what young people are facing in the future, actually quite scary. i have young adult kids myself. I'm not sure what the answer is. The NHS needs massive funding, adult social care is on it's knees and needs funding, the ageing population is set to expand enormously further and obviously people want pensions protected and disability benefits protected.

Personally I think the wonderful NHS will become extinct & it will be like many other countries. If you have insurance we will see you now

What are the social tarries for utilities? I haven’t heard of them.

@Babyroobs I worry for my dc too. I favour taxing wealth a lot more, much higher CGT for example. I would also have a property tax based on the value of your home. The ageing population is a massive problem but the burden can not only fall on the young. I can guarantee their pension age will move it & pensions will not have the triple lock for them.

I would reform the NHS to be like France but there would be uproar.

Your implication seemed to be because they owned their own homes they were well off and not in need of pension....where actually the fact they own their own homes is saving money for younger people who don't have to foot the care bill.

Anonymouseposter · Today 23:00
What are the social tarries for utilities? I haven’t heard of them.

British Telecom off a 'basic' reduced tariff for phone line/broadband. The water companies offer a lower rate 'social tariff, for people 'in need' etc.. The energy companies less so (but increasingly) offer similar tariffs, or money off bills. They don't tend to advertise such tariffs, and rely on agencies such as debt charities, Citizens Advice et. referring people to them.

Agree, it's unsustainable and currently doesn't seem fit for purpose. i work with elderly people. All I have heard from them recently is shocking tales of poor care. they can't get a GP appointment, many have given up. Many have not seen a GP since pre-covid times. Just this week I have spoken to one client who has lost his leg because of delayed vascular care and mistakes made, another 96 year old who spent a couple of weeks in hospital for something minor and ended up coming out of hospital with numerous pressure sores, one was waiting on the floor hours waiting for an ambulance following a fall. Waits for assessments through adult social care are taking an age and elderly people trying to look after spouses are ringing our helpline in tears saying they cannot cope anymore. The whole system seems to be at breaking point. It is shocking.

..where actually the fact they own their own homes is saving money for younger people who don't have to foot the care bill.

what does this mean?

I think someone said above that only 4% of pensioners are in privately rented accommodation so most won’t be getting large rents paid. A majority own their house and, while that’s wealth in a way they have to maintain the house and unless they release equity it doesn’t help with day to day living. I know overall younger people have it harder but most pensioners aren’t rolling in it. Ordinary people are turning on each other while the bigger picture is overlooked.

That's not a real argument anyone is making.

One reason for keeping pension below minimum wages are that so many people of pension age are far wealthier than those of working age - it makes very little sense to give a larger sum to them. The theory would be that it's better to give something to everyone to cover the basics even for those who don't or don't yet claim entitlements, and then supplement with rent support, council tax relief, disability benefits etc. In reality it does leave a fair number left behind, because of the difficulty of accessing and gaining these benefits in the age of both the internet and austerity, which is the challenge.

The other reason is that there is an equity issue in expecting the 8.1m working age people living in poverty (and their 4.5m children also living in poverty) to have their taxes supplementing so many pensioners who do have additional pensions, savings or valuable assets such as houses. While it's true there are some areas of major inefficiency in the government, it's also true that even tackling all the major areas that pps have highlighted here wouldn't make a dent if we tried to improve standards to what they should be for all age groups.

Anyone who acts like this is a simple issue without massive shades of grey is either playing politics or missing the detail.

It means their homes will be sold to pay for any care they need.

people who have housing have an asset & those people tend to be older, asset gives a degree of choice. Since 08 we have seen barely any wage growth & huge asset inflation. Even if a young person is able to buy today they won't see anything like the huge growth in equity.

But your post implied that those who are struggling didn't get off their backside and do something about it.....my point is not everyone is born equal not everyone unless they are happy to leave others to suffer have the same chance personally I don't see why my taxes should pay for childcare for those choosing to have children when others are freezing and going hungry

It means their homes will be sold to pay for any care they need.

isn't that only for a care home? care in the home which is far more common doesn't take into account house value.

This is what I'm annoyed about pension age is already changing to 68 when I was a little girl it was 60 for women. It will probably be mid 70s or there will be no state pension by the time I'm ready to retire and life expectancy isn't increasing. How can they expect people to do many jobs well into their 70s? Why aren't the grey vote campaigning for their kids and grandchildren who will suffer a huge decline in their living standards.

Why aren't the grey vote campaigning for their kids and grandchildren who will suffer a huge decline in their living standards.

good point