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 delighted that today’s young parents get suppor

what support do young parents get?

To be pedantic todays parents aren't that young! 😆

@Mischance - it's not wrong to make the most of the chances you have of course, and you sound like you have planned well.

I think most people will understand the need for a basic state pension. But this thread was about the generational fairness of that. The point of receiving it is going to change, and so people should plan accordingly. It has to change in part because the country cannot sustain long term pensions for a growing older population- we need to do something about that. Otherwise simply the Government will not have enough contributions from tax payers to make it work. You know that even if you pay in, unless you are a pretty good earner then you will not be a contributor. I don't mean that personally of course but it is unsustainable.

I for my part have been truly irritated by the idea that the state pension should be offering something other than a basic income on that basis. Most people could never pay enough tax to sustain a private pension of that amount. In that sense, every recipient is very lucky.

You’re behaving like you’re the first generation ever to be affected in this way.

I thought todays young were the first generation to see their standard of living decline as opposed to improve on their parents?

They’re young to me - just about everyone is. I gave three examples, they’re in my post on p32.

@yoyy - yes that is true. One day they will be the decision makers. I am sure they will remember how they were treated.

Truly one of the nastiest threads.

what support do young parents get?

I was thinking of child care - there was none of that around when I was a young Mum - staying home was the only real option - not that I did not enjoy it, but the financial pressure of having huge debts with high interest rates and only one earner was very stressful indeed.

childcare costs are prohibitive though & one reason why woman are having far fewer dc or none at all.

Yes, but at least there is childcare. There wasn’t any when my son was little. I just had to stay at home with him. I hated it, stuck at home all day with my brain turning to mush and no money.

There's the 15/30 hours every child gets for a year. Then tax free childcare. I know there is extra help for families on UC but unsure exactly what. Childcare would still cost more than I used to make (I SAH for now).

Where are you thinking of going?

Is this a serious idea?

Yes, but at least there is childcare. There wasn’t any when my son was little. I just had to stay at home with him. I hated it, stuck at home all day with my brain turning to mush and no money.

That many can't afford, not sure how that is progress? When did you have dc?

I went to nursery in the 80s & my parents also received something like child benefit (unsure of the name but it was universal). And Im sure the childcare vouchers were around in the 90s.

1975. No child benefit for the first child until 1977 - it was about £2 if I remember correctly.

I think our household paid around
50k in income tax and ni last year. We definitely do not cost the state that much.

Similar figure here and I am the only adult.

There's the 15/30 hours every child gets for a year. Then tax free childcare.

The 30 hours & tax free childcare is means tested & you don't get any free hours until the term after you turn 3, unless you are on a very low income & both partners need to work for the 30 hours. The free hours are also only for 38 wks of the year. I was very disappointed to qualify for my free childcare & then find out my bill was still £800 a month for a p/t place.

Also the gov aren't doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. If they encourage a mother to stay in work, particularly ones earning well (which are more likely to be the ones that don't give up work) they bring in more tax revenue.

1975. No child benefit for the first child until 1977 - it was about £2 if I remember correctly.

was it means tested though?

wasn't there a family allowance thing.

No. Every family got the same amount

I’m far from outraged. My post was simply to point out that we all pay for services and benefits that we don’t use.

The demands I personally have made on the state in the 51 years I’ve paid tax - at the higher rate for about 20 of those years - have been the birth and education of one child who was particularly accident prone so probably had more A&E attendances than most. I paid for my own gallbladder and cataract surgery and anticipate paying for any further surgery I might need.

i begrudge none of that but I think I’ve pretty much covered my costs to the state. I’ve been happy to contribute to other people’s children’s education and healthcare and I’m delighted that today’s young parents get support I didn’t so it’s just a little annoying to see “why should I pay lots of taxes for services that won't exist when I reach old age?”.

It really depends how far into the higher rate tax bracket you were during those 20 years. If not near the top of it, I'm afraid that isn't sufficient to even cover your own costs. Not when you work it out over a lifetime including pensions and average costs for old age care, your own education, and your own shares of things that we all need to be in place so pay collectively like defence budgets, infrastructure, regulation, judicial system etc etc.

It's fine not to be a net contributor. The whole idea of society is that we support each other. Hence my posts asking why this doesn't seem to be reciprocal with older generations seemingly not caring much about the situation younger generations have been put in. But to start moaning at others with this trope of "I've paid all my life!" when it's not even clear that you've covered your own costs is a bit rich. I'm not saying you aren't a net contributor: maybe you are. No idea. But SO many come out with this "I've paid for fifty years!" stuff without actually calculating what they've paid and a large proportion of them have in reality been subsidised by others so the self-righteousness is a little absurd.

I like winding up the self righteous youngsters of today who think they have it so hard, it’s getting boring

Oh dear. One would hope that you might have grown up by now and have a little more of a healthy and magnanimous perspective on life. How sad for you.

I think many people would swap their "free" hours for the MIRAS scheme, I would!

What a spiteful comment.

As was the comment that poster was responding to, to be fair.

Correct.

No it was silly but not spiteful.

And only needing one full time income to buy a house.

quite @Justthisonce12 but it just falls on deaf ears. So much denial on these threads!