Chancellor Rishi Sunak hints at ruling out 8% pension rise

Thrugelmir

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

I rarely find myself agreeing with this Government, but I'd support breaking the triple lock if it dictated an 8% rise to the state pension as that's a one time anomaly. The criticism I have is for politicians coming up with veinal policies like the triple lock designed to buy votes. The bigger issue is the staggeringly low level of the UK state pension compared to other developed countries and the decades of austerity forced on great British institutions by recent governments. Funding cuts to NHS, police, broadcasting, and worst of all the introduction of  students being charged university fees. and the lack of regard for rules and standards exemplified in the Grenfell disaster and the recent  conviction of Southern Water for polluting have turned the UK into a second world country...third world status looms.

This from someone who, AIRI, lives in the US What are student fees there? What is publicly funded healthcare like there? If the US is first world I prefer second world. People risk their lives to get here, from France!

You need to check your "facts" as well. NHS spending is constantly increasing, even in real terms, even before the pandemic. Don't lecture us about Grenfell till Miami is explained, the 2018 inspection would appear to have highlighted design errors.

And you complain about the state pension being "staggeringly low" but don't support an 8% rise Anyone who understands the UK benefits system knows that contributory benefits are low, but means tested benefits are among the best in the world. Plus the UK has generally better employer pension provision than countries who rely on the state more.

Why do you assume that I support the way US education and healthcare are funded and where I live is irrelevant to merit of my comments. Pointing out debacles like the Surfside condo collapse  in no way lessens the tragedy of Grenfell or the light that it should shine on systemic failings in the UK. Nothing is solved by getting defensive.

My criticism of the 8% increase is because it’s a one off thing and does not solve the  basic low level of the state pension. 

 Try getting a sense of proportion before hysterical comments about systemic failures and becoming a third world country. I'd prefer living here to the vast majority of countries in the world, definitely including the US.

Sums up my view concisely.  I felt safer walking through the streets in down town Amman with my Palestine driver than many of the places I've been to in the US over the years. Even though the Foreign Office had it as a no go zone to Westerners. Courteous, accommodating, respective culture still exists in the most surprising of places. Even the third world. 

zagfles

bostonerimus said:

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

I rarely find myself agreeing with this Government, but I'd support breaking the triple lock if it dictated an 8% rise to the state pension as that's a one time anomaly. The criticism I have is for politicians coming up with veinal policies like the triple lock designed to buy votes. The bigger issue is the staggeringly low level of the UK state pension compared to other developed countries and the decades of austerity forced on great British institutions by recent governments. Funding cuts to NHS, police, broadcasting, and worst of all the introduction of  students being charged university fees. and the lack of regard for rules and standards exemplified in the Grenfell disaster and the recent  conviction of Southern Water for polluting have turned the UK into a second world country...third world status looms.

This from someone who, AIRI, lives in the US What are student fees there? What is publicly funded healthcare like there? If the US is first world I prefer second world. People risk their lives to get here, from France!

You need to check your "facts" as well. NHS spending is constantly increasing, even in real terms, even before the pandemic. Don't lecture us about Grenfell till Miami is explained, the 2018 inspection would appear to have highlighted design errors.

And you complain about the state pension being "staggeringly low" but don't support an 8% rise Anyone who understands the UK benefits system knows that contributory benefits are low, but means tested benefits are among the best in the world. Plus the UK has generally better employer pension provision than countries who rely on the state more.

Why do you assume that I support the way US education and healthcare are funded and where I live is irrelevant to merit of my comments. Pointing out debacles like the Surfside condo collapse  in no way lessens the tragedy of Grenfell or the light that it should shine on systemic failings in the UK. Nothing is solved by getting defensive.

My criticism of the 8% increase is because it’s a one off thing and does not solve the  basic low level of the state pension. 

So what countries don't have one off tragic events which kill 70 odd people then, eh? The pandemic has killed 4 million worldwide. 2000 people die every single day of natural causes in the UK. Try getting a sense of proportion before hysterical comments about systemic failures and becoming a third world country. I'd prefer living here to the vast majority of countries in the world, definitely including the US.

Agreed there are one off accidents and tragedies everywhere everyday and the pandemic is awful. Human error can be excused when it is a legitimate error and not a pattern of disregard for rules and regulations and for safety. Florida might have an issue with the time scale of building inspections, the contractors didn't do a good job and the condo association and the building owners did not act swiftly enough to repair the building. There might be systemic issues through out Florida. With Grenfell we now know that thousands of buildings are have dangerous cladding and fire safety not up to code. That tragedy unveiled an massive problem in the implementation of UK building regulations and a willingness to cut corners to save money.

I would also prefer to live in the UK over most countries, but that doesn't mean there are not things that I want to see improved and changed. I would never live in Florida or vast regions of the US as they are worse than the UK ;-).

The irony is that if there'd been a bit more "austerity" and less obsession with "green" targets, the £8.7 million refurbishment of Grenfell during which the cladding was installed might never have happened.

The fact is that even if you live in a building with the same sort of cladding, you still face far greater threats to your life, many of which are in your control.

sheslookinhot

Thrugelmir said:

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

I rarely find myself agreeing with this Government, but I'd support breaking the triple lock if it dictated an 8% rise to the state pension as that's a one time anomaly. The criticism I have is for politicians coming up with veinal policies like the triple lock designed to buy votes. The bigger issue is the staggeringly low level of the UK state pension compared to other developed countries and the decades of austerity forced on great British institutions by recent governments. Funding cuts to NHS, police, broadcasting, and worst of all the introduction of  students being charged university fees. and the lack of regard for rules and standards exemplified in the Grenfell disaster and the recent  conviction of Southern Water for polluting have turned the UK into a second world country...third world status looms.

This from someone who, AIRI, lives in the US What are student fees there? What is publicly funded healthcare like there? If the US is first world I prefer second world. People risk their lives to get here, from France!

You need to check your "facts" as well. NHS spending is constantly increasing, even in real terms, even before the pandemic. Don't lecture us about Grenfell till Miami is explained, the 2018 inspection would appear to have highlighted design errors.

And you complain about the state pension being "staggeringly low" but don't support an 8% rise Anyone who understands the UK benefits system knows that contributory benefits are low, but means tested benefits are among the best in the world. Plus the UK has generally better employer pension provision than countries who rely on the state more.

Why do you assume that I support the way US education and healthcare are funded and where I live is irrelevant to merit of my comments. Pointing out debacles like the Surfside condo collapse  in no way lessens the tragedy of Grenfell or the light that it should shine on systemic failings in the UK. Nothing is solved by getting defensive.

My criticism of the 8% increase is because it’s a one off thing and does not solve the  basic low level of the state pension. 

 Try getting a sense of proportion before hysterical comments about systemic failures and becoming a third world country. I'd prefer living here to the vast majority of countries in the world, definitely including the US.

Sums up my view concisely.  I felt safer walking through the streets in down town Amman with my Palestine driver than many of the places I've been to in the US over the years. Even though the Foreign Office had it as a no go zone to Westerners. Courteous, accommodating, respective culture still exists in the most surprising of places. Even the third world. 

But probably not as safe as the person of the wrong religion walking through the wrong area of a city in NI.

pensionpawn

I'm surprised that the Chancellor hasn't explored the notion of leaving the triple lock alone and introducing a new 'wealth' tax on those drawing State Pension who are also drawing taxable pension income. For example a 'personal pension allowance' on top of the existing PA where a new pension wealth tax is applied. Maybe implemented like this:
1. Personal pension allowance = personal allowance, £12570.
2. For those who only have pension income the first £12570 is tax free (no change), the next £12570 attracts tax at basic rate (no change) and any pension income above £25140 attracts tax at the new 'pension wealth tax rate' of basic rate PLUS this rise in the state pension due to the triple lock i.e. in this context 28% So at present the new personal pension tax would only apply to those drawing more than (£25140-SP) from the personal pensions.
3. For those who continue with part time work, their earned income is subject to the usual PA, basic rate tax, NI etc however state plus any personal pension income taken, in addition to earned income, that then exceeds the PA+PPA, is taxed at the 'pension wealth tax rate' of 28%
4. The 'pension wealth tax rate' will rise each year by the triple lock increase (e.g. a 2% rise the following year would increase the tax to 8.16%) however it protects lower wealth pensioners those who would prefer not to see the triple lock continue to 'enhance' the SP and creams back some of that rise in the SP from those with very healthy DB / DC pensions / part time workers drawing SP who could 'afford' (though of course would not like to) return some of the triple lock rise if they elect to take / are entitled to a considerable pension income / remain working PT.
5. The personal pension allowance would rise synchronously with the SP.

I'm not suggesting this is a perfect solution, I've merely thrown this into the melting pot to stimulate discussion on how best to support decent rises in the SP for those at the lower end of the pension wealth scale. Thoughts...?

Thrugelmir

Too complex to administer. The 8% increase once given is embedded forever.  The current debate isn't about "decent" increases in the state pension. 

zagfles

pensionpawn said:

I'm surprised that the Chancellor hasn't explored the notion of leaving the triple lock alone and introducing a new 'wealth' tax on those drawing State Pension who are also drawing taxable pension income. For example a 'personal pension allowance' on top of the existing PA where a new pension wealth tax is applied. Maybe implemented like this:
1. Personal pension allowance = personal allowance, £12570.
2. For those who only have pension income the first £12570 is tax free (no change), the next £12570 attracts tax at basic rate (no change) and any pension income above £25140 attracts tax at the new 'pension wealth tax rate' of basic rate PLUS this rise in the state pension due to the triple lock i.e. in this context 28% So at present the new personal pension tax would only apply to those drawing more than (£25140-SP) from the personal pensions.
3. For those who continue with part time work, their earned income is subject to the usual PA, basic rate tax, NI etc however state plus any personal pension income taken, in addition to earned income, that then exceeds the PA+PPA, is taxed at the 'pension wealth tax rate' of 28%
4. The 'pension wealth tax rate' will rise each year by the triple lock increase (e.g. a 2% rise the following year would increase the tax to 8.16%) however it protects lower wealth pensioners those who would prefer not to see the triple lock continue to 'enhance' the SP and creams back some of that rise in the SP from those with very healthy DB / DC pensions / part time workers drawing SP who could 'afford' (though of course would not like to) return some of the triple lock rise if they elect to take / are entitled to a considerable pension income / remain working PT.
5. The personal pension allowance would rise synchronously with the SP.

I'm not suggesting this is a perfect solution, I've merely thrown this into the melting pot to stimulate discussion on how best to support decent rises in the SP for those at the lower end of the pension wealth scale. Thoughts...?

ie basically what the LTA does, just at a lower level. Just reducing the LTA would achieve the same. While putting even greater pressure on the NHS as doctors retire early because it's not worth them working any more as their pensions get hammered

michaels

zagfles said:

pensionpawn said:

I'm surprised that the Chancellor hasn't explored the notion of leaving the triple lock alone and introducing a new 'wealth' tax on those drawing State Pension who are also drawing taxable pension income. For example a 'personal pension allowance' on top of the existing PA where a new pension wealth tax is applied. Maybe implemented like this:
1. Personal pension allowance = personal allowance, £12570.
2. For those who only have pension income the first £12570 is tax free (no change), the next £12570 attracts tax at basic rate (no change) and any pension income above £25140 attracts tax at the new 'pension wealth tax rate' of basic rate PLUS this rise in the state pension due to the triple lock i.e. in this context 28% So at present the new personal pension tax would only apply to those drawing more than (£25140-SP) from the personal pensions.
3. For those who continue with part time work, their earned income is subject to the usual PA, basic rate tax, NI etc however state plus any personal pension income taken, in addition to earned income, that then exceeds the PA+PPA, is taxed at the 'pension wealth tax rate' of 28%
4. The 'pension wealth tax rate' will rise each year by the triple lock increase (e.g. a 2% rise the following year would increase the tax to 8.16%) however it protects lower wealth pensioners those who would prefer not to see the triple lock continue to 'enhance' the SP and creams back some of that rise in the SP from those with very healthy DB / DC pensions / part time workers drawing SP who could 'afford' (though of course would not like to) return some of the triple lock rise if they elect to take / are entitled to a considerable pension income / remain working PT.
5. The personal pension allowance would rise synchronously with the SP.

I'm not suggesting this is a perfect solution, I've merely thrown this into the melting pot to stimulate discussion on how best to support decent rises in the SP for those at the lower end of the pension wealth scale. Thoughts...?

ie basically what the LTA does, just at a lower level. Just reducing the LTA would achieve the same. While putting even greater pressure on the NHS as doctors retire early because it's not worth them working any more as their pensions get hammered

Or similar to pension credit, if you earn very little you get topped to a minimum level but if you have other provision then you don't get the top up?

Thrugelmir

zagfles said:

pensionpawn said:

I'm surprised that the Chancellor hasn't explored the notion of leaving the triple lock alone and introducing a new 'wealth' tax on those drawing State Pension who are also drawing taxable pension income. For example a 'personal pension allowance' on top of the existing PA where a new pension wealth tax is applied. Maybe implemented like this:
1. Personal pension allowance = personal allowance, £12570.
2. For those who only have pension income the first £12570 is tax free (no change), the next £12570 attracts tax at basic rate (no change) and any pension income above £25140 attracts tax at the new 'pension wealth tax rate' of basic rate PLUS this rise in the state pension due to the triple lock i.e. in this context 28% So at present the new personal pension tax would only apply to those drawing more than (£25140-SP) from the personal pensions.
3. For those who continue with part time work, their earned income is subject to the usual PA, basic rate tax, NI etc however state plus any personal pension income taken, in addition to earned income, that then exceeds the PA+PPA, is taxed at the 'pension wealth tax rate' of 28%
4. The 'pension wealth tax rate' will rise each year by the triple lock increase (e.g. a 2% rise the following year would increase the tax to 8.16%) however it protects lower wealth pensioners those who would prefer not to see the triple lock continue to 'enhance' the SP and creams back some of that rise in the SP from those with very healthy DB / DC pensions / part time workers drawing SP who could 'afford' (though of course would not like to) return some of the triple lock rise if they elect to take / are entitled to a considerable pension income / remain working PT.
5. The personal pension allowance would rise synchronously with the SP.

I'm not suggesting this is a perfect solution, I've merely thrown this into the melting pot to stimulate discussion on how best to support decent rises in the SP for those at the lower end of the pension wealth scale. Thoughts...?

ie basically what the LTA does, just at a lower level. Just reducing the LTA would achieve the same. While putting even greater pressure on the NHS as doctors retire early because it's not worth them working any more as their pensions get hammered

First world problem where people put money and themselves before helping less fortunate others. 

pensionpawn

Thrugelmir said:

Too complex to administer. The 8% increase once given is embedded forever.  The current debate isn't about "decent" increases in the state pension. 

OK, I'll reword: "...how best to convince the Chancellor not to cancel the 8% triple lock SP rise"

NedS

At some point I envisage a tax charge similar to the Child Benefit High Income charge whereby the state pension is effectively tapered away for pensioners with income above a certain threshold (maybe £40-50k). Give it with one hand and take it away from the more wealthy with the other.