The demise of the triple lock.

MACKEM99

Durban said:

The triple lock should go. These are extraordinary times and the life chances for of a lot of the young are going to be scarred.

I am not young and the triple lock would definitely be to my advantage but I think that the young have been shafted for too long and they are the ones who are going to be paying dearly for this for probably the rest of their lives.

I , as well as a lot of older people have seen great equity in my property over the years.
Free university education. Free milk at school. 

Bus passes , winter fuel allowance , free prescriptions , triple lock , and now covid.  The proportion of elderly to young working age people is getting more and more unequal.

 Of course the burden is going to fall on their shoulders whilst they see their pension age getting further and further away.

Everyone always says " well I've worked all my life and paid my taxes and my national insurance so I deserve it"   I can tell you , the young are going to be paying a hell of a lot more than we ever did.

 "Of course the burden is going to fall on their shoulders "

God help us then!

eskbanker

MACKEM99 said:

Wife was watching a programme the other day - something like rich house - poor house.  I was reading but saw part of it where a woman was saying she was very poor.  Her 3 young kids all under the age of 10 had good quality mobile phones in their hands.  Ah that poor are they?

Looks like I have a problem with my browser - I was trying to navigate to an MSE forum discussion about pension increases but seem to have been redirected to www.dailymail.co.uk/letters

Grumpy_chap

The 2.5% part of the triple lock is, and always was, flawed.  The reason being that the level is, and always will be, notional.  Why choose 2.5% and not 2% or 3%?

squirrelpie

"Bus passes" - well I have one, but since there are no bus services any longer, I don't use it.

"and now covid" - as a special offer, older people get to die?

hugheskevi

Grumpy_chap said:

The 2.5% part of the triple lock is, and always was, flawed.  The reason being that the level is, and always will be, notional.  Why choose 2.5% and not 2% or 3%?

Not notional, but rather political

An underpin of 2.5% was Labour's Basic State Pension uprating policy pre-2010 (the policy was RPI increases with a minimum increase of 2.5%, and various ad hoc increases every now and again based more on whim than science).

The 2.5% underpin in turn was a policy in response to the adverse publicity following a 75p up-rating from £66.75 to £67.50 per week in the year 2000, with 2.5% ensuring future increases would be at least £1.70 p/a.

michaels

hugheskevi said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The 2.5% part of the triple lock is, and always was, flawed.  The reason being that the level is, and always will be, notional.  Why choose 2.5% and not 2% or 3%?

Not notional, but rather political

An underpin of 2.5% was Labour's Basic State Pension uprating policy pre-2010 (the policy was RPI increases with a minimum increase of 2.5%, and various ad hoc increases every now and again based more on whim than science).

The 2.5% underpin in turn was a policy in response to the adverse publicity following a 75p up-rating from £66.75 to £67.50 per week in the year 2000, with 2.5% ensuring future increases would be at least £1.70 p/a.

£1.70 per week I think....

michaels

MACKEM99 said:

Wife was watching a programme the other day - something like rich house - poor house.  I was reading but saw part of it where a woman was saying she was very poor.  Her 3 young kids all under the age of 10 had good quality mobile phones in their hands.  Ah that poor are they?

We have 3 kids, according to the JRF both parents need an income of £25k each in order for our family to have a minimum socially acceptable lifestyle.  Apologies if this sounds like a DM rant.

woolly_wombat

eskbanker said:

State pension increased by significantly more than the MP's pay increase this year (3.9% versus 3.1%).

For more than 11,000 pensioners the increase will be outweighed by cuts of up to £70 per week due to the allowance for adult dependents being axed:
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/01/how-much-state-pension-will-you-get-in-april-2020/

zagfles

woolly_wombat said:

eskbanker said:

State pension increased by significantly more than the MP's pay increase this year (3.9% versus 3.1%).

For more than 11,000 pensioners the increase will be outweighed by cuts of up to £70 per week due to the allowance for adult dependents being axed:
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/01/how-much-state-pension-will-you-get-in-april-2020/

Which was announced about 10 years ago - an outdated concept based mainly on the idea that a woman's place is the home and if her husband reaches SPA well before her (because he's a lot older) how is she supposed to be financially supported?

Get a job - really? where's her place?? Claim benefits if she can't find one (or is disabled etc) like any other working age adult? How demeaning.

zagfles

hugheskevi said:

Grumpy_chap said:

The 2.5% part of the triple lock is, and always was, flawed.  The reason being that the level is, and always will be, notional.  Why choose 2.5% and not 2% or 3%?

Not notional, but rather political

An underpin of 2.5% was Labour's Basic State Pension uprating policy pre-2010 (the policy was RPI increases with a minimum increase of 2.5%, and various ad hoc increases every now and again based more on whim than science).

The 2.5% underpin in turn was a policy in response to the adverse publicity following a 75p up-rating from £66.75 to £67.50 per week in the year 2000, with 2.5% ensuring future increases would be at least £1.70 p/a.

Yup - I remember the "peanuts" headline in the Sun. The idea that the rise in the state pension would only buy a bag of peanuts. What the Sun and it's readers didn't seem to understand was that the increase in the state pension wasn't supposed to buy anything extra, it was supposed to keep the state pension's spending power the same as the previous year by uprating it with inflation.

But it caused enough of a media provoked storm to make the government make irrational policy changes to pander to the stupid. Like has happened many times since...