Chancellor Rishi Sunak hints at ruling out 8% pension rise

Eldi_Dos

dunstonh said:

aardvaak said:

Pensioners have suffered a decrease in income during the pandemic and deserve the increase they can not work and have no other means of support

That is highly unlikely as 
1) state pension has continued to rise each year
2) occupational pensions have continued to rise each year
3) annuities have continued to pay the agreed terms
4) investment back drawdown has seen values rise over the period allowing continued income.

What income have you had that has fallen?

Savings income.

Thrugelmir

molerat said:

Thrugelmir said:

molerat said:

Albermarle said:

I think the end result is that the Triple lock will be left in place , so they can say they stick with their election promises .
However the rise in earnings will be recalculated in some way just for this years calculation ,to take account of the special circumstances . 
So the projected 8% will become say 5% , and they can still then say it is way above what the non pensioner population has seen and we are all in it together . Plus save a Billion or two .

 my 20 yo granddaughter is getting £9 when they only have to pay her £6.56.  

Companies are free to set whatever wage levels they wish. Minimum wage is only there as default. Treating employees fairly has considerable benefits to a business isn't just a cost. 

And that has always been the case but now even those that don't want to "treat employees fairly" and previously had no problems hiring are having to pay higher wages to attract staff.

Don't buy every newspaper headline you read. The fog created by the pandemic hasn't lifted yet. 

daveyjp

steampowered said:

daveyjp said:

The world of the 60s, 70s when current pensioners were starting out in life, was very much different to today, even more so for women.

Sorry, why couldn't people who started work in the 60s and 70s save for their retirements during the course of their working lives?

If you haven't put aside anything from your retirement, why should it be the government's job to top that up through the benefit system (and the state pension is a benefit). It shouldn't. No more than it should be the government's job to give you a lavish lifestyle if you are on working age benefits. 

The changes in how the UK economy operates now is so far removed from the 60s and 70s its incredible its only 50 or so years ago.

Many people worked in nationalised industries, with final salary pensions (utilities, public transport, steel, mining etc).

Many women left full time work when they had their first child and didn't return until children were teenagers.

It was only in the 80s that personal pension plans were introduced.  Stakeholder pensions, specifically for low paid workers (often women in part time roles) have only been around for 20 years.

We are now at a point where saving for a private pension is a natural thing to do, this wasn't the case even 30 years ago.

Thrugelmir

daveyjp said:

steampowered said:

daveyjp said:

The world of the 60s, 70s when current pensioners were starting out in life, was very much different to today, even more so for women.

Sorry, why couldn't people who started work in the 60s and 70s save for their retirements during the course of their working lives?

If you haven't put aside anything from your retirement, why should it be the government's job to top that up through the benefit system (and the state pension is a benefit). It shouldn't. No more than it should be the government's job to give you a lavish lifestyle if you are on working age benefits. 

We are now at a point where saving for a private pension is a natural thing to do, this wasn't the case even 30 years ago.

Without auto enrollment peoples attitudes probably would never have changed. They'd have spent the money on something else. 

xylophone

I think you’ll find that pensioners paid Income Tax 

And there must be  a fair few who still do........

eskbanker

molerat said:

Even at 8% the maximum increase by that factor is £14.37 per week and don't forget that in many cases the government will be getting 20% or even 40% of that back

Any large number can be presented as a small one if broken down enough (why not go down to £2/day?!) but 8% of a massive number (~£100bn) is still a very large number (~£8bn) to find from stretched budgets, albeit smaller net of tax.

dunstonh

Eldi_Dos said:

dunstonh said:

aardvaak said:

Pensioners have suffered a decrease in income during the pandemic and deserve the increase they can not work and have no other means of support

That is highly unlikely as 
1) state pension has continued to rise each year
2) occupational pensions have continued to rise each year
3) annuities have continued to pay the agreed terms
4) investment back drawdown has seen values rise over the period allowing continued income.

What income have you had that has fallen?

Savings income.

Most people do not use savings as a means to provide income (although it is often used to eat capital for short term periods)  and the low interest rates are not to do with the pandemic and have been low for over a decade.

steampowered

daveyjp said:

The changes in how the UK economy operates now is so far removed from the 60s and 70s its incredible its only 50 or so years ago.

Many people worked in nationalised industries, with final salary pensions (utilities, public transport, steel, mining etc).

Many women left full time work when they had their first child and didn't return until children were teenagers.

It was only in the 80s that personal pension plans were introduced.  Stakeholder pensions, specifically for low paid workers (often women in part time roles) have only been around for 20 years.

We are now at a point where saving for a private pension is a natural thing to do, this wasn't the case even 30 years ago.

I accept that private pensions are more popular than they used to be, but what happened to the rest of the money that people working in the 60s and 70s earnt over their working lives?

Savings, buy-to-let properties, bigger owned properties, stock market investments .... these are all things that could provide for retirement. 

Alexland

Albermarle said:

However the rise in earnings will be recalculated in some way just for this years calculation ,to take account of the special circumstances .

Yes I think most voters and pensioners would accept that the triple lock wasn't intended and wouldn't be appropriate for these circumstances and so by exception a longer measurement period should be used that covers the volatility in earnings caused by the pandemic ensuring that over several years the SP has grown by the greater of the three measures which is still a good result for those benefiting and shouldn't cause any reasonable retirement plans to fail.

AlwaysLearnin

dunstonh said:

Eldi_Dos said:

dunstonh said:

aardvaak said:

Pensioners have suffered a decrease in income during the pandemic and deserve the increase they can not work and have no other means of support

That is highly unlikely as 
1) state pension has continued to rise each year
2) occupational pensions have continued to rise each year
3) annuities have continued to pay the agreed terms
4) investment back drawdown has seen values rise over the period allowing continued income.

What income have you had that has fallen?

Savings income.

Most people do not use savings as a means to provide income (although it is often used to eat capital for short term periods)  and the low interest rates are not to do with the pandemic and have been low for over a decade.

And something affecting all cash savers, regardless of age...