triple lock

p00hsticks

Albermarle said:

But the House of Lords has pointed out that the 8.3 per cent figure could be adjusted to account for the pandemic impact. The Government claims it cannot produce reliable adjusted figures so it must abandon earnings protection and use 3.1 per cent, based on September's inflation rate. Well, the Government's claim does not stand up to scrutiny. With all the statistical experts at the Government's disposal, of course they can produce a reasonable figure. 

My point is that there must be a way of directing extra help to those who really need it, rather than an across the board increase.  

It may not be enough for some, but there are a number of means tested benefits in place -  for example

Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Reduction,  NHS Low income scheme.

One issue is that some who need them either aren't aware of them or see them as 'charity' and won't claim what they are entitled to.

Thrugelmir

xylophone said:

Even if this year's pension increase had been 8%, for many that still wouldn't be enough to cover the current cost of living hike, especially in relation to fuel bills. 

No, but an increase of 8% would have been  a vast improvement on 3.1%!

Everybody wants a free lunch. Ask them to contribute and they'll soon change their minds. 

Silvertabby

xylophone said:

Even if this year's pension increase had been 8%, for many that still wouldn't be enough to cover the current cost of living hike, especially in relation to fuel bills. 

No, but an increase of 8% would have been  a vast improvement on 3.1%!

Those eligible for PC (even the smallest amount) can indeed  be  in a much better position than those whose income puts them into the just managing category.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/60903791/#Comment_60903791

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/55098239/#Comment_55098239

The "just managing" (say state pension and modest occupational pension) could be paying full and increasing  CT/rent etc and having no help at all with those 8% plus increases on food/fuel/gas/electricity etc etc etc.

The maximum increase, if applied across the board, would have been:

£179.60 + 8% = £193.97

£179.60 + 3.1% = £185.17

A difference of £8.80 per week.  Although, of course, the really needy pensioners wouldn't get that as very few are on the full single tier pension.  I would have got it, having been able to top up my State pension to the full whack through voluntary Class 3 NIs - and although it would have been nice, I can spend that without even thinking about it. 

I would much rather see this mythical £8.80 per week used to help all those - not just pensioners - who really need it to help pay their fuel bills this year.  The forecast is that the State pension increase for 2023 should be more like 7% and, hopefully, fuel prices will settle to a more sensible level. 

CKhalvashi

bdba13 said:

As the chancellor has done nothing to help pensioners directly I am reminded that I find it difficult to understand the reason for not using the triple lock.
Those in work were furloughed last year and were helped out, so how does it equate that returning to normal wages,increased wages by 7% or so.
Did the average worker get an actual pay rise of 7%.   No they did not. When the rate that pensions were to go up was made, it was widely thought that the increase would be so low as to put pensioners at risk of being badly hit, it has. I read all the time of government mismanagement with public money, the end result pensioners/working people suffer.

How has the government not helped you? We as a household have lost more than 50% of our income for both of the last 2 tax years. Your income has increased year on year, unlike many workers who ultimately are picking up the tab for your state pension through increased NI premiums from April 6.

If you have only the SP to live on, you will either have savings or be entitled to a range of benefits, such as Council Tax Support, Housing Benefit (if applicable), free bus passes etc.

Luxuries are what private pensions are for, not for the state to provide. I guarantee though with the huge drop in exports and increases in cost of living (both removing significant amounts of money from the economy) the situation is not good, and many people (including me) are just as annoyed as you.

xylophone

and although it would have been nice, I can spend that without even thinking about it. 

The "just managing" and the really needy don't have that luxury!

Those on full  or part new state pension are in the minority.

Most pensioners are currently on  old state pension.

An increase of over £11 a week on the basic state pension could make a difference to the "just managing"?

Grumpy_chap

xylophone said:

And in fact, had pensions increased by 8.3%

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/will-inflation-in-the-uk-keep-rising

actual inflation may only just have been exceeded.

I think using the 8.3% on the basis that inflation has now risen would potentially result in a double-counting.  

The planning for rises in pension, public sector salaries, NMW, benefits are all determined based upon the autumn data for implementation from the following spring.

The now higher inflation will be taken into account when the 2023 pay-out levels are assessed based upon autumn 2022 data. 

There is always a lag.  When inflation is rising, this causes challenges.  However, the opposite can occur when inflation falls rapidly.


The triple-lock is always challenged because the 2.5% figure is arbitrary, yet has now become enshrined so that no Government can ever change that.  It is an arbitrary figure, because 2.5% could just as easily have been set at 2% or 3%.

Silvertabby

xylophone said:

and although it would have been nice, I can spend that without even thinking about it. 

The "just managing" and the really needy don't have that luxury!

Those on full  or part new state pension are in the minority.

Most pensioners are currently on  old state pension.

An increase of over £11 a week on the basic state pension could make a difference to the "just managing"?

Then give them my £11 per week.

I know what it is to be cold and hungry, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  As a child of the 1950s, I was brought up in a 2-up-2 down with just a coal fire (when it was lit), an outside loo and no hot water on tap.   In the winter, we had ice on the insides of the bedroom windows, washed in cold water, and had to wait for dad to break the ice in the loo pan before we could use it.

But mum reckoned we were 'posh' because we had an indoor bathroom with a tub and handbasin - even if the bath had to be filled by carrying a procession of kettles and pans up the stairs.  Health and safety eat your hearts out!  Tea on a Thursday night (the night before pay day) was usually jam butties - and my sister and I were told how lucky we were to have jam, because 'poor' children only had bread and marge.   Most of our clothes came from jumble sales or the school uniform 'wear again' shop.  However, we clearly weren't officially poor, as we didn't even qualify for free school dinners. Cue more jam butties.

I now live in a 4 bed detached with central heating (regardless of the increase in fuel bills) and 3 toilets.  Am I grateful?  You bet - but I'm also not greedy.

cfw1994

bdba13 said:

As the chancellor has done nothing to help pensioners directly I am reminded that I find it difficult to understand the reason for not using the triple lock.
Those in work were furloughed last year and were helped out, so how does it equate that returning to normal wages,increased wages by 7% or so.
Did the average worker get an actual pay rise of 7%.   No they did not. When the rate that pensions were to go up was made, it was widely thought that the increase would be so low as to put pensioners at risk of being badly hit, it has. I read all the time of government mismanagement with public money, the end result pensioners/working people suffer.

Feels like a troll post to me……do come back to discuss the replies you got 🤷‍♂️

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi said:

bdba13 said:

As the chancellor has done nothing to help pensioners directly I am reminded that I find it difficult to understand the reason for not using the triple lock.
Those in work were furloughed last year and were helped out, so how does it equate that returning to normal wages,increased wages by 7% or so.
Did the average worker get an actual pay rise of 7%.   No they did not. When the rate that pensions were to go up was made, it was widely thought that the increase would be so low as to put pensioners at risk of being badly hit, it has. I read all the time of government mismanagement with public money, the end result pensioners/working people suffer.

 I guarantee though with the huge drop in exports and increases in cost of living (both removing significant amounts of money from the economy) the situation is not good, and many people (including me) are just as annoyed as you.

The war in Ukraine is having more profound consequences than many people are aware of. The motor industry in particular is going to suffer badly. 

QrizB

xylophone said:

and although it would have been nice, I can spend that without even thinking about it. 

The "just managing" and the really needy don't have that luxury!

Those on full  or part new state pension are in the minority.

Most pensioners are currently on  old state pension.

Doesn't Pension Credit bring anyone who is recsiving solely the old SP up to almost-new-SP income levels? If so, there should be no pensioners living solely on old SP.