Triple Lock Becomes Double Lock For 1 Year

jamesd

michaels said:

Some workers are getting back power because of Brexit ... We are hearing howls of protest from the Labour supporting middle classes who see prices increasing for lattes and domestic cleaners 

It's also interesting to see truck drivers getting big joining bonuses from supermarkets and the like  and shortages of labour for farming and fast food that is showing signs of increasing wages at the bottom now the supply of inexpensive foreign labour is reduced.

Higher pay at the bottom will mean more cost for some things but at least it's going to people who are earning least.

PennyForThem_2

So this tax year public pensions such as NHS pension and state pension (SP) were increased by 0.5%.  Most of my bills were increased by by 4%++++.

There is also the issue of SP before it changed 2016 and after.  I think older State Pensioners are a lot worse off now than those getting the 'enhanced, amalgamated' SP.

Though I welcome the possible enhancement I feel that the 'reduction for 1 year' will slip to never being reinhanced.

(As to care home costs I would much rather be able to pay more tax and/or know how much so I can insure.  And yes, I worked hard and want to look after my children.  If I have a health problem i.e. cancer then it would be funded by NHS - having dementia which is a physical problem is not - I resent that!)

itwasntme001

jamesd said:

itwasntme001 said:

It is unfair to floor it as you could have a situation where wages and inflation fall (say with automation), whilst pensions still rise 2.5% when there is no need to at all.

It is also unfair to use the max of inflation and wages.  I believe pensioners should be equally suffering to the working class (like when inflation rises more than wages).

The triple lock isn't permanent. It's just trying to do some slow catching up to the level relative to wages that it was at before the Thatcher government changed it to inflation as a way to slowly cut it compared to wages.

I am not arguing about the problems with the base level of the pension.  My point was more about how we calculate future increases (or decreases) assuming the current state pension is the correct amount.

As I mentioned, it should be purely tied to the median wage with no floor at all.

Andy_L

Silvertabby said:

I know people are howling about broken manifesto promises, but that was written before we knew that a global pandemic would knock the whole world on its a.r.s.e.

Of course it will have to be paid for, by the fairest means possible - and paying pensioners a wildly inflated 8.8% wouldn't have been fair.

And I've never understood why people suddenly stopped paying NI on their earnings, no matter how high, simply because they reached a certain age.

Stand by for the screaming from those who want it all on a butty - as long as someone else pays for it.

because most of the benefits that NI entitles you to aren't available to those over state pension age 

Thrugelmir

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

This has just illustrated that the pledge BS.  Remove low income jobs for a year and suddenly you have a jump in average salaries.  This pledge made no sense when it was first introduced under Blair/Brown and hasn’t stopped being nonsensical when repeated at a later date. 

Provides a transparent non political method of annual increases. 

It only makes sense politically because older people vote a lot. If it was non-political, it would be linked to inflation. 

There is a broader aim to progressively raise the state pension in a sustainable and affordable manner. 

Given that people have fewer kids and live longer the above is a self-contradictory statement. 

Also well documented that the population size will eventually fall. Applys across the Western world. The state pension is also progressively being paid at an older age. 

itwasntme001

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

This has just illustrated that the pledge BS.  Remove low income jobs for a year and suddenly you have a jump in average salaries.  This pledge made no sense when it was first introduced under Blair/Brown and hasn’t stopped being nonsensical when repeated at a later date. 

Provides a transparent non political method of annual increases. 

It only makes sense politically because older people vote a lot. If it was non-political, it would be linked to inflation. 

There is a broader aim to progressively raise the state pension in a sustainable and affordable manner. 

Given that people have fewer kids and live longer the above is a self-contradictory statement. 

Also well documented that the population size will eventually fall. Applys across the Western world. The state pension is also progressively being paid at an older age. 

I think the concern Mordko raises is more about the interim period, before world population is projected to fall (in the 2050s).  Although I should add this is just a projection, and we may very well have another "baby boomer" generation created by the gen Z (they are still in their early 20s).

Either way, there seems to be a significant period which started in 2010 where the dependency ratios are worsening (ratio of working to very young and old).  This is set to worsen as the baby boomer generation become too old to work (physically and mentally after 75 gets exponentially harder - especially physical where labour shortages will be more apparent).

So its all well and good how we should define the state pension, what it means and how to calculate the right amount.

But a separate, but certainly relevant question is how can we afford it in this interim period I am talking about?  There needs to be much more significant "soft defaulting" of the state pension, with some sort of means testing being the next logical step?

Thrugelmir

itwasntme001 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

This has just illustrated that the pledge BS.  Remove low income jobs for a year and suddenly you have a jump in average salaries.  This pledge made no sense when it was first introduced under Blair/Brown and hasn’t stopped being nonsensical when repeated at a later date. 

Provides a transparent non political method of annual increases. 

It only makes sense politically because older people vote a lot. If it was non-political, it would be linked to inflation. 

There is a broader aim to progressively raise the state pension in a sustainable and affordable manner. 

Given that people have fewer kids and live longer the above is a self-contradictory statement. 

Also well documented that the population size will eventually fall. Applys across the Western world. The state pension is also progressively being paid at an older age. 

I think the concern Mordko raises is more about the interim period, before world population is projected to fall (in the 2050s).  Although I should add this is just a projection, and we may very well have another "baby boomer" generation created by the gen Z (they are still in their early 20s).

Western developed is very different to non. Nigeria projected to become the 4th largest country by population size in the decades to come. 

Silvertabby

Andy_L said:

Silvertabby said:

I know people are howling about broken manifesto promises, but that was written before we knew that a global pandemic would knock the whole world on its a.r.s.e.

Of course it will have to be paid for, by the fairest means possible - and paying pensioners a wildly inflated 8.8% wouldn't have been fair.

And I've never understood why people suddenly stopped paying NI on their earnings, no matter how high, simply because they reached a certain age.

Stand by for the screaming from those who want it all on a butty - as long as someone else pays for it.

because most of the benefits that NI entitles you to aren't available to those over state pension age 

You mean like the NHS?

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir said:

itwasntme001 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

This has just illustrated that the pledge BS.  Remove low income jobs for a year and suddenly you have a jump in average salaries.  This pledge made no sense when it was first introduced under Blair/Brown and hasn’t stopped being nonsensical when repeated at a later date. 

Provides a transparent non political method of annual increases. 

It only makes sense politically because older people vote a lot. If it was non-political, it would be linked to inflation. 

There is a broader aim to progressively raise the state pension in a sustainable and affordable manner. 

Given that people have fewer kids and live longer the above is a self-contradictory statement. 

Also well documented that the population size will eventually fall. Applys across the Western world. The state pension is also progressively being paid at an older age. 

I think the concern Mordko raises is more about the interim period, before world population is projected to fall (in the 2050s).  Although I should add this is just a projection, and we may very well have another "baby boomer" generation created by the gen Z (they are still in their early 20s).

Western developed is very different to non. Nigeria projected to become the 4th largest country by population size in the decades to come. 

Is the plan for the young workers in Nigeria to fund baby boomer state pensions in the UK?

itwasntme001

Thrugelmir said:

itwasntme001 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

This has just illustrated that the pledge BS.  Remove low income jobs for a year and suddenly you have a jump in average salaries.  This pledge made no sense when it was first introduced under Blair/Brown and hasn’t stopped being nonsensical when repeated at a later date. 

Provides a transparent non political method of annual increases. 

It only makes sense politically because older people vote a lot. If it was non-political, it would be linked to inflation. 

There is a broader aim to progressively raise the state pension in a sustainable and affordable manner. 

Given that people have fewer kids and live longer the above is a self-contradictory statement. 

Also well documented that the population size will eventually fall. Applys across the Western world. The state pension is also progressively being paid at an older age. 

I think the concern Mordko raises is more about the interim period, before world population is projected to fall (in the 2050s).  Although I should add this is just a projection, and we may very well have another "baby boomer" generation created by the gen Z (they are still in their early 20s).

Western developed is very different to non. Nigeria projected to become the 4th largest country by population size in the decades to come. 

Won't make any difference to the problems the West face.  There are limitations to immigration (we don't have unlimited resources) and politically it is getting harder to have such policies.