Are pensioners about to be shafted – again?

brewerdave

This thread seems to have gone a long way off track!
As a moderately well off pensioner, I'd not have any complaints if the triple lock went as long as the annual increase was linked to CPI. Also wouldn't object if the WFA was restricted to pensioners claiming other benefits.
HOWEVER, free prescriptions should be maintained -I remember reading an article some time ago that suggested removing the benefit would be counter productive as people would end up not taking medication with a resultant increase in load on the hospitals.
Also -bus passes -as I understand it, they only cost if they are used. I use mine on average once a month to travel to the local town -where parking is almost impossible -if it was taken away I'd use my car with an increase in pollution and congestion in the local roads -further our local bus service appears to be almost entirely used by pensioners/other pass holders during the day - take a significant no. of customers away and the service would cease to exist outside "rush hours" so the poorest pensioners would end up losing out.
Free TV license is now out of the equation as the BBC are carrying the cost.

JezR

bowlhead99 wrote: »

It sounded like what you were saying was that triple lock hasn't helped pensioners in last couple of years as increases followed earnings, but they did benefit from it in earlier years because "...the flat 2.5% was used for several years before that".

True. Although it might be a few rather than several.

Then it also sounded like you thought that there was an unwarranted/unfair decrease from use of CPI replacing RPI... I inferred this because in reference to the benefit of getting a flat 2.5% despite low inflation and earnings, you said, "this has to be balanced against against the reduced rise in other years from the change to CPI rather than RPI for the inflation measure".

Initially when introduced the triple lock did in some years result in a lower rise than if the previous RPI system had still been in force. I haven't had a chance to go back through each year comparing the triple lock to the previous RPI system; from memory it was pretty much a wash overall to around 2013 or 14 and beneficial thereafter. I'm sure I posted here about it at the time in response to a question but can't find it at the moment.

The implication of your comment was that the change to CPI was wrong and detrimental to pensioners trying to maintain their real terms value, which is why you were seeking to 'balance' the clearly beneficial impact of boosting their real terms value with the 2.5% lock.

No such implication I think. I made no comment about what inflation measure might be the most appropriate, either as a single valorisation, or within a compound formula. As you have raised the matter personally I think this is CPIH and this may happen eventually after the latest version of this is fully established as the preferred measure of consumer price inflation by ONS in March.

There is also a question whether KAC3 is the most appropriate measure of earnings growth since it includes bonuses. I'll leave that as a hanging thought ...

JezR

antrobus wrote: »

The link between pensions and average earnings was only introduced in 1975. (The basic state pension wasn't even subject to regular uprating until 1973.)

And the graduated pension scheme wasn't valorised against anything between 1961 and 1979.

The Christmas bonus and extra 25p at 80 years were some ad hoc enhancements belonging to this era that have persisted.

rpc

BananaRepublic wrote: »

However, many in the public sector do have enviable pension benefits that seem unfair when viewed from the private sector. Most people in the private sector have defined benefit pensions, with a modest contribution from the employer, and they go through many jobs, usually not through choice, often starting again on a lower salary. Those I know in the public sector have well defined career paths, yearly pay reviews, promotions, good security and excellent pension benefits.

If you want to discuss bringing generous, unfunded DB schemes into line then I'm all ears.

OP was suggesting removing the state pension (the NI funded one, not the contractual one) from civil servants just because they are civil servants. I suggest that is some less polite version of nonsense.

rpc

antrobus wrote: »

The link between pensions and average earnings was only introduced in 1975. (The basic state pension wasn't even subject to regular uprating until 1973.)

Perhaps all of the "give us what we were promised" campaigners should be offered exactly that? WASPI, I'm looking at you...

steampowered

Sapphire wrote: »

I'm sure pensioners who you no doubt think are very wealthy and should subsist on the amount you suggest (which would give them little enjoyment and a miserable existence and terrible standards of care) after a lifetime of hard work would be delighted with your view.

I think that people should be expected to save for their retirement during their working life. If you want an enjoyable retirement, you should pay for it rather than expecting everyone else to pay for it through the government.

It is exactly the same principle as people needing to earn a salary during their working life. People who are living on benefits can't complain that a life on benefits gives them little enjoyment and a miserable existence. If you want a good living standard you need to pay for it yourself by working.

Young people living on JSA need only do so for a short period, and have every opportunity of removing themselves from their position. Retired people do not, though of course with your obvious dislike of older people, you'd not mind if they ended up in the gutter – or better still, in some Soylent Green scenario. Lovely. One can only hope the same thing happens to you one day.

The point is that young people can and do live on £57.90 a week. I don't see why the government should be paying for people to have anything more than that to be honest.

I won't be in the position of being in poverty when I retire, because I am doing the sensible thing and paying a good 15% of my salary into a private pension my entire working life, although I may need to increase that.

What you say in your first paragraph may be true for the last decade or so, but no one dreamt that their pensions would be messed around with in future before that. People were given to understand that they would contribute a certain amount, then get an assured return for that.

This is the one part of your argument which I do agree with. People should be able to know roughly what their state pension might be, so that they can plan accordingly.

What I don't agree with is the suggestion that pensioners have been "messed around". To the contrary, I think pensioners have done very well in recent years.

The state pension has been increased over time broadly in line with inflation; while other benefits such as winter fuel allowances have been added. And at a time of swathing spending cuts across the entire public sector, services and benefits given to pensioners have been an anomaly and been largely protected. I think pensioners have been treated very generously.

Something like getting rid of the triple lock and instead linking the state pension to inflation would be most sensible and nothing compared to the cuts which everyone else has had to deal with.

Jackieboy

brewerdave wrote: »

This thread seems to have gone a long way off track!
As a moderately well off pensioner, I'd not have any complaints if the triple lock went as long as the annual increase was linked to CPI. Also wouldn't object if the WFA was restricted to pensioners claiming other benefits.
HOWEVER, free prescriptions should be maintained -I remember reading an article some time ago that suggested removing the benefit would be counter productive as people would end up not taking medication with a resultant increase in load on the hospitals.
Also -bus passes -as I understand it, they only cost if they are used. I use mine on average once a month to travel to the local town -where parking is almost impossible -if it was taken away I'd use my car with an increase in pollution and congestion in the local roads -further our local bus service appears to be almost entirely used by pensioners/other pass holders during the day - take a significant no. of customers away and the service would cease to exist outside "rush hours" so the poorest pensioners would end up losing out.
Free TV license is now out of the equation as the BBC are carrying the cost.

Don't forget that, with an annual prescription payment certificate, nobody need pay more than £9pcm, no matter how many medications they need.

Teaandscones

brewerdave wrote: »

Also -bus passes -as I understand it, they only cost if they are used. I use mine on average once a month to travel to the local town -where parking is almost impossible -if it was taken away I'd use my car with an increase in pollution and congestion in the local roads -further our local bus service appears to be almost entirely used by pensioners/other pass holders during the day - take a significant no. of customers away and the service would cease to exist outside "rush hours" so the poorest pensioners would end up losing out.
Free TV license is now out of the equation as the BBC are carrying the cost.

Another factor to bear in mind is that the existence of free bus travel is helpful when trying to persuade relatives in their 80's or 90's that it really is time to give up driving.

whattochoose

Various announcements have suggested that come the next election, it's likely any successful government will end the commitment to the "triple lock" guarantee where the State Pension is concerned.
Well, now that we are going to have a General Election earlier than expected, do members think we can expect the triple lock provision to be done away with sooner than we expected?
Thank you.

le_loup

I suspect that no politician will answer that question. I also suspect that they will not tie themselves to silly policies like "no increase in tax, NI, VAT etc.
At least, let's hope so - we appoint a government to make decisions as they see necessary.