Does the State Pension increase every year?

Stubod

...yes but even if it's not, (and I doubt it would continue for ever any way), every year of increase still benefits those who have yet to take it...

SouthCoastBoy

Stubod said:

...yes but even if it's not, (and I doubt it would continue for ever any way), every year of increase still benefits those who have yet to take it...

Not necessarily because of triple lock they could freeze rises in the future and therefore in real terms be worse off than current cohort of pensioners

zagfles

SouthCoastBoy said:

Stubod said:

...yes but even if it's not, (and I doubt it would continue for ever any way), every year of increase still benefits those who have yet to take it...

Not necessarily they could freeze rises in the future.

They could do but unlikely. More likely they'd raise the state pension age if they want to reduce cost.

Silvertabby

One of the long term aims of the new single tier pension was to save money.  Under the old scheme, it was possible for high earners (who weren't contracted out of SERPS/SP2) to accrue more than £300 per week State pension.  Even moderate earners could rack up more than £200 per week.

Once we are out of the transitional period, high and moderate earners will be capped at £175 per week, despite contracting out/reduced NI  having ended in 2016. 

zagfles

Silvertabby said:

One of the long term aims of the new single tier pension was to save money.  Under the old scheme, it was possible for high earners (who weren't contracted out of SERPS/SP2) to accrue more than £300 per week State pension.  Even moderate earners could rack up more than £200 per week.

Once we are out of the transitional period, high and moderate earners will be capped at £175 per week, despite contracting out/reduced NI  having ended in 2016. 

Even those on min wage would have got more on the old scheme (based on the post 2002 rules)

Thrugelmir

xylophone said:

.those who are moaning about the unfairness of the triple lock idea seem to forget that they will also benefit from any increase when their time eventually comes...?

If it's kept......

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/15132

Earnings are distorted by the % in the minimum wage. Majority of the population are going no where fast. As much technology requires fewer skills. 

Benefits are a costly and ineffective use of resources. Namely public sector manpower.  Recall one restructuring exercise. Was chatting to a young bright lady from the Treasury who was on secondment. Discussing the rationale behind the maximum 23 month salary payouts under a voluntary redundancy scheme. She said said one word "Pension".  A full costing exercise had been undertaken to determine a balance of offering jam today to save many thousands of pounds more in the future. 

Stubod

SouthCoastBoy said:

Stubod said:

...yes but even if it's not, (and I doubt it would continue for ever any way), every year of increase still benefits those who have yet to take it...

Not necessarily because of triple lock they could freeze rises in the future and therefore in real terms be worse off than current cohort of pensioners

....this does not make sense, every increase now is also an increase for all those who have yet to take it?...are you saying it is better not to have any increases?

MaxiRobriguez

mgdavid said:

MaxiRobriguez said:

I think all of my bills increased by more than inflation this year.
We can argue the appropriateness of the triple lock forever but almost every data set you look at shows wealth concentrating in the elderly more than ever before with life chances of the young weaker than than it has been since gruel was a staple, and so giving above average inflation payrises to those people in a year when working people's income fell is, frankly, infuriating. 
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/02/david-willetts-idea-young-people-are-getting-raw-deal-now-widely-accepted

a lot of people overlook the fact that the 70-year-old's generation looked after what money they had, didn't have today's sense of entitlement and didn't splash the cash on consumer products. We made do with what we could get cheaply or for nothing, bought doer-upper houses, drove 10 year old cars and rarely went out on the town. We also dropped to a single income upon starting a family yet still managed to maintain a cohesive family unit. Saving and planning for the future was still a priority - none of this YOLO nonsense - so it shouldn't be a surprise that in retirement we are well placed. As Gary Player famously said 'it's funny you know, the harder I worked the luckier I got'.

Au contraire. Your generation out of them all has the biggest sense of entitlement and it's clearly evident in your post in which you cast an entire generation as feckless and impulsive.

Do you have any evidence for it? Any at all?

You dropped to a single income upon starting a family. Well that's nice but that's not something that most of today's young generation can do because that would push them into poverty. You could do that because pay was better and cost of living was cheaper. Nothing to do with working harder.

Saving and planning for the future. Some in my generation can't because they're living hand to mouth. Of those of us that can, me included, I have to have a saving rate 4x that of my 70 year old parents to get the same income in retirement. That is salary and inflation adjusted to compare apples against apples. Even then, I don't have any guarantees about income throughout retirement - some economic shocks could wipe out that wealth, whilst theirs is guaranteed.

Sprinkle in some debt free education, house prices that were 3x one salary rather than 7x two salaries, secure jobs. How hard did you work for those perks please? Do let me know in man hours I'd be delighted to know.

All of this has been well researched and there is plenty of data on it. You won't read it, because you are wilfully ignorant - just constantly bleat about your superiority. It is much easier on your conscious to blame young people for being bone idle. It is much harder to accept your generation has given them a raw deal for your own economic benefit. Deep down you know it though.

cfw1994

MaxiRobriguez said:

mgdavid said:

MaxiRobriguez said:

I think all of my bills increased by more than inflation this year.
We can argue the appropriateness of the triple lock forever but almost every data set you look at shows wealth concentrating in the elderly more than ever before with life chances of the young weaker than than it has been since gruel was a staple, and so giving above average inflation payrises to those people in a year when working people's income fell is, frankly, infuriating. 
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/02/david-willetts-idea-young-people-are-getting-raw-deal-now-widely-accepted

a lot of people overlook the fact that the 70-year-old's generation looked after what money they had, didn't have today's sense of entitlement and didn't splash the cash on consumer products. We made do with what we could get cheaply or for nothing, bought doer-upper houses, drove 10 year old cars and rarely went out on the town. We also dropped to a single income upon starting a family yet still managed to maintain a cohesive family unit. Saving and planning for the future was still a priority - none of this YOLO nonsense - so it shouldn't be a surprise that in retirement we are well placed. As Gary Player famously said 'it's funny you know, the harder I worked the luckier I got'.

Au contraire. Your generation out of them all has the biggest sense of entitlement and it's clearly evident in your post in which you cast an entire generation as feckless and impulsive.

Do you have any evidence for it? Any at all?

You dropped to a single income upon starting a family. Well that's nice but that's not something that most of today's young generation can do because that would push them into poverty. You could do that because pay was better and cost of living was cheaper. Nothing to do with working harder.

Saving and planning for the future. Some in my generation can't because they're living hand to mouth. Of those of us that can, me included, I have to have a saving rate 4x that of my 70 year old parents to get the same income in retirement. That is salary and inflation adjusted to compare apples against apples. Even then, I don't have any guarantees about income throughout retirement - some economic shocks could wipe out that wealth, whilst theirs is guaranteed.

Sprinkle in some debt free education, house prices that were 3x one salary rather than 7x two salaries, secure jobs. How hard did you work for those perks please? Do let me know in man hours I'd be delighted to know.

All of this has been well researched and there is plenty of data on it. You won't read it, because you are wilfully ignorant - just constantly bleat about your superiority. It is much easier on your conscious to blame young people for being bone idle. It is much harder to accept your generation has given them a raw deal for your own economic benefit. Deep down you know it though.

In a world where Jeff Bezos would spend $2million to compare with the average American spending $1, I think there are plenty of things wrong.   We live in a very unequal world.   
Many countries eschew home ownership until much later than the UK.  Many years ago (almost 30) I was on an exchange sports trip to Germany & found most there didn't stop renting until their 40s.   It's a very UK thing to encourage home ownership so young.
That said, I don't hold todays pensioners quite so vehemently responsible as you appear to.   I don't think faffing with the 'triple' lock is the answer to the problems.....and as others have explained, was a reasonable approach to making their income broadly more equitable.

eastcorkram

Often puzzled by the fact that apparently I'm to blame for the fact that houses were cheap, well, relatively cheap. I bought my first house in 1982 , a one bedroom so called starter home. It was £21,500. I borrowed £18,500. 
 It didn't feel cheap at the time. 
When I went to view it, what should I have done? Offer £27,995?
I had no influence on the price of houses. Then or anytime since.