To be glad triple lock going and hope they means test it too

[Randomamsi]

I have a multi millionaire senior relative who receives £1,400 from the state pension each month, in addition to 6k private pension.

He's not means tested and he's received that for 30 years. Yes, he paid into the system but he does not need it!!! He also had free uni, dirt cheap first house back in the 60s and retired aged 59.

Meanwhile the younger generation:

• thousands in student loan debt
• asset poor as can't get on the housing ladder
• means tested for child benefit, tax free childcare etc
• working until late 60s/ 70s

Why do pensioners have it easy while younger ones pay the price?

For vulnerable pensioners at risk of poverty, there should obviously be provision to help them, I'm not suggesting we let people starve. But multimillionaire pensioners or very asset rich pensioners do NOT need the state pension. It's about time things changed.

No one gets £1400 a month state pension.

I’m 71, worked from age 18 until my mid 60’s as an NHS nurse. I get £838 a month state pension on top of my paltry NHS pension. The total gives me less than £2000 a month, to pay all bills and food, run a small car, and have the odd trip away.

I’m happy to lose the triple lock as long as that money is used to sort out social care.

Oh I couldn't give a shit if others are wealthy...but I do object to people who are richer than me taking out of the coffers that I'm paying into via my taxes. There's no special separate pension pot for each person...it comes out of all our taxes.

Needs to be tapered in. Maybe say anyone born after 1990 won’t get one, and do some tax adjustment to help them save.

Ha ha ridiculous. Any examples to provided justification for your views?

PS. 'Older people' - define older people
'boomer generation' - does anyone else think it's facile and divisive to label generations like this. Apart from Gen X, we like our label..

Yes, as soon as people start to talk of “need” things get very messy indeed! I could question all sorts of benefits but it’s pointless. So many times I’ve read comments pensioners don’t need x y z and I could throw exactly the same back at those commentators and their life and spending or saving choices.

You are just, plain wrong.

I think the issue is their definition of “fairness” is taking other people’s hard earned and / or saved money.

That’s not fairness. That’s sheer green eyed jealous and greed.

They’d do better to turn that energy into bettering themselves and preparing for the future. That would be more “fair” both in the here and now to those with “the broadest shoulders” that are already having to fund them.

It really is shocking how labour has driven a class war on the premise of jealously. We need the country to open their eyes and pull together rather than pulling those that have succeeded back to rock bottom.

Envy I suppose

Burnham was adamant on not having an early GE. Who knows if his words will stick.

What we see is often a result of our own bias and what we subconsciously expect to see or are looking for.

You are ageist for stereotyping a whole generation of people and referring to them by the derogatory term, "boomer."

Good job you don't mind being called ageist, hopefully you are a bit more careful about not being discriminatory to other groups in society.

Yup. It jumps off the page.

Nail on head. People on moderate incomes who are frugal, often lose out. If they’ve even a small extra pension, they may be only marginally better off than someone receiving Pension Credit. No account is taken of how their earnings may have been the same. Hence the backlash when the WFA was withdrawn from those just over the limits for means tested benefits.

Agreed.

If he plans to govern and run on the triple lock and rejoining the EU, he might roll the dice. Appears he’s more of a gambler than the hapless Starmer.

Instead he's saying all the things he WILL do, AFTER the next GE, hiding behind an old useless manifesto. What a phoney. Who does that. They get in power and all Starmer / Reeves did is go on about 'but the last 14 years', and all Burnham is doing is 'but we'll start in 3 years'. Pathetic.

Not that we should encourage governments to make deliberate policy based upon certain demographics and their political tendencies but a lot pensioners in the UK at the moment do tend to vote for either the conservatives or Reform anyway, so antagonising them changes nothing. My neighbour is in his 70's and is definitely a Reform type. Has a St George's flag decal on the back of his car, wears a flat cap and goes to the local pub with a black labrador. The thought of him raging to the local punters about this did give me a chuckle!

I can't believe that comment - it is dangerously Communist in thinking. If people have SAVED money and put it aside for their retirement, not frittering it away on immediate gratification, why on earth should they give it up for others who couldn't be bothered to plan?

What about the Pensioners whose lives aren’t easy?
The ones who were on low earnings working 12 hour nights in a factory and managed to buy their council house/ a cheap terrace, or they rent a not so nice house, who also have a tiny workplace pension which takes them just over the cliff edge for help.

He no doubt drinks warm ale as well typical old Brit that never existed

Rage against withdrawal of WFA from people who don't need it was just an excuse to complain.

What are you talking about - my dad and mum are in their late 70s. They were born well after the war. My grandmother who did experience these things died 30 years ago in her 80s

The current pensioners were born in the 40s and 50s. The war ended in 1945.

But your relative throughout decades of working life, paid taxes, which supported those receiving benefits throughout those decades, as well as going into the gvt pension pot as insurance for their future.
That they've been canny with finances and are now very comfortable is unconnected.
You're just jealous.

Exactly. And there are hundred of thousands of these pensioners. I not over a million. Despicable the way some people talk about the older generations. They make me feel sick, actually.

State pension is £241 pw - LESS than £1000 pm

Yes, I think there should be a discussion about that. Though I would argue we need to end the triple lock AND cut benefits. QI would like to see benefits back in the table next. We need to build everything around a guiding principle - that work must pay. Whilst, protecting the disabled, investing in education, early year education, sure starts centres, public infrastructure and amenities, job creation to include large numbers of apprenticeships.
The able should work. It does nobody any good being sat at home of benefits. But I accept that the system is largely failing our young people because the opportunities just aren’t there. Cut ENI for those under 26 - we need to pour money into getting people working!

Means testing the state pension will be a spectacular own goal. It will stop millions of people on track for a modest work pension from contributing any more. In addition, those with modest pension pots will spend them as soon as they can to bring their income down to one where they get a state pension. They'll end up considerably worse off in retirement & potentially on benefits.
What you think will affect the richest will actually impact the poorer members of society more. People don't trust pensions as it is due to continued government changes, this will make things far worse.