MSE Poll: Should the state pension triple-lock guarantee end?

phillw

Penitent wrote: »

If this is the reason for keeping it, then should we not also have a triple lock on illness and disability benefits?

Yes. The only problem is that the government would have to stop pushing the idea that claimants are all workshy scroungers & they aren't going to do that in a hurry as it's a big vote winner.

I'm not convinced the triple lock has served it's purpose, but removing it will be a huge problem for any government. I can see why they are thinking of doing it now, when they think that pensioners are desperate to let that nice lady take us out of the horrible EU. They'll struggle getting it past the pensioners at any other time and pensioners vote more often.

The Barnett formula, which buys votes in Scotland, will be difficult to get rid of all the time they are talking about holding referendums.

chardir

I'm not sure what I think of the triple lock, but this poll has reinforced my opinion that, essentially, people are selfish.

badmemory

The original idea was that the triple lock would help us catch up to Europe, once we had then it would be removed. We haven't caught up but as we seem to have voted ourselves out of Europe that is no longer relevant.

This is the first vote where I have voted out of self interest rather than what I believe is right. It SHOULD by rights only NEED to be a double lock.

We have allowed government to demonise those who need to claim benefits for whatever reason. It is my belief that once this election is over and they have another 5 years they will start to demonise pensioners and we will be lucky to get any increase at all.

isasmurf

The poll is flawed. There are many other options available such as keeping the triple lock but lowering the guaranteed element or the smoothed earnings increase originally proposed by the IFS and recommended by the Work and Pensions Committee. The poll doesn't allow to choose other options but forces you into the narrow range of the pollster's choices or to choose that you are uncertain. Very poor.

What seems to be forgotten in the debate on the triple lock is that before the Coalition government there was a double lock of prices or 2.5%, the 2.5% guarantee being introduced after the furore of the low price indexation giving a 75p increase early in the Labour government. The Pensions Act 2007 required the uprating to be switched from price inflation to average earnings by 2015 at the latest, and earlier if affordable, because pensions had fallen behind earnings growth at that time. The coalition government decided they would bring average earning indexation forward but also keep the existing uprating measures and thus the triple lock was born. It should also be remembered the 2.5% guarantee was only ever applied to the basic state pension. As more people start receiving the new single state pension, it will cost more to maintain that guarantee over the lower basic state pension.

The debate is also unusual in that it is about the end measure. I've not heard any debate on the objective trying to be achieved. Should pension uprating be about reducing pensioner poverty, maintaining the spending power of pensions, ensuring pensioners incomes are kept at the same relative level as their working age counterparts or something else? Whatever policy is proposed should address the objective being sought.

ruperts

Single lock on inflation should suffice. If the state pension is set at a fair rate to begin with then there is never any need for it to rise ahead of inflation. The triple lock ensures it is unsustainable and therefore that the current younger generation, who are already the first generation in recorded historic to be poorer than the one that preceded it, are put at an ever larger disadvantage.

The current generation of pensioners are already the most financially privileged in the history of the world, perhaps it's time they had a think about whether it's morally right to force their kids to pay for their lavish retirement.

Ectophile

This whole triple lock is a cynical example of attracting pensioner votes, at the cost of ever higher taxes for young people. These ever-increasing pensions don't come for free - somebody has to pay for them.

But the politicians know that old people vote, and young people don't.

andy5241

Just like the local and general elections. The majority of people who have voted are the more mature people who care about voting. 6000+ in the over 50s

And I'm sure this will be born out in the up coming election.

shropshirelady

ruperts wrote: »

Single lock on inflation should suffice. If the state pension is set at a fair rate to begin with then there is never any need for it to rise ahead of inflation. The triple lock ensures it is unsustainable and therefore that the current younger generation, who are already the first generation in recorded historic to be poorer than the one that preceded it, are put at an ever larger disadvantage.

The current generation of pensioners are already the most financially privileged in the history of the world, perhaps it's time they had a think about whether it's morally right to force their kids to pay for their lavish retirement.

Most pensioners aren't financially privileged at all. And who do you think payed for children to go to school/child benefits etc., even if they haven't got children of their own? I've well and truly paid for my pension by working all my life (as with most older people), at very inequal pay, and for what? It's not appreciated by younger people, and I can't believe the insults we get because we're 'greedy'