Here's how much the state pension triple lock and other benefits could rise by in April 2024

Albermarle

Exodi said:

Silvertabby said:

8.5% includes the one-off bonus to the likes of the NHS.  To be fair, this really isn't a true reflection of average pay rises - 7.8% sounds like a much more accurate figure.

As for the 2022 increase, the salary increase figure was artificially inflated due to those whose salaries had been reduced to 80% (during Covid) being restored back to their original 100%.  Not a true pay rise by any stretch of the imagination, so limiting that year's increase to CPI (being higher than the minimum 2.5%) seemed fair to me.  After all, I'm not aware of any pensioners who had their pension incomes reduced to 80% at that time. 

Spoken as a State pensioner. 

A lot of pension arguments made are emotive and with little heed to context like you have. I greatly admire your neutrality. Unfortunately I'm probably not so neutral.

As a full time employee in his 30s, I could have only dreamed of a 10.1% increase last year, or the suggested 8.5% this year.

It's not difficult to see why the triple-lock can not be sustainable long term. The current unfunded state and public pension liabilities are astronomical and ever-increasing. From a financial point of view this is correct, and all political parties know that.

The current system of effectively bribing pensioners with unsustainable pension increases, solely because they make up a significant part of voters that actually turn up to vote, is frustrating, but perhaps when I'm a pensioner I'll be happily to trade my vote for the same. The alternative is that more people in their Twenties and Thirties actually voted, which would be generally good for democracy.

I am loathed to pay National Insurance when there exists a remote possibility that the State Pension will eventually need to be cut down or means tested in the next few decades because it's simply unaffordable.

Of course, as someone said before, not likely to be a popular opinion on a board populated by a significant amount of pensioners. I would think that for most of the regulars on here, the state pension is only a part of their income and whether it goes up 6% or 8% is unlikely to have any material effect. (However as @xylophone points out that is not the case for many )

Surprised nobody has mentioned wealthy pensioner households getting a £500+ Winter Fuel Payment.
Maybe they will keep warm by buying a case of Malt Whiskey with it.

Exodi

Albermarle said:

Exodi said:

Silvertabby said:

8.5% includes the one-off bonus to the likes of the NHS.  To be fair, this really isn't a true reflection of average pay rises - 7.8% sounds like a much more accurate figure.

As for the 2022 increase, the salary increase figure was artificially inflated due to those whose salaries had been reduced to 80% (during Covid) being restored back to their original 100%.  Not a true pay rise by any stretch of the imagination, so limiting that year's increase to CPI (being higher than the minimum 2.5%) seemed fair to me.  After all, I'm not aware of any pensioners who had their pension incomes reduced to 80% at that time. 

Spoken as a State pensioner. 

A lot of pension arguments made are emotive and with little heed to context like you have. I greatly admire your neutrality. Unfortunately I'm probably not so neutral.

As a full time employee in his 30s, I could have only dreamed of a 10.1% increase last year, or the suggested 8.5% this year.

It's not difficult to see why the triple-lock can not be sustainable long term. The current unfunded state and public pension liabilities are astronomical and ever-increasing. From a financial point of view this is correct, and all political parties know that.

The current system of effectively bribing pensioners with unsustainable pension increases, solely because they make up a significant part of voters that actually turn up to vote, is frustrating, but perhaps when I'm a pensioner I'll be happily to trade my vote for the same. The alternative is that more people in their Twenties and Thirties actually voted, which would be generally good for democracy.

I am loathed to pay National Insurance when there exists a remote possibility that the State Pension will eventually need to be cut down or means tested in the next few decades because it's simply unaffordable.

Of course, as someone said before, not likely to be a popular opinion on a board populated by a significant amount of pensioners. I would think that for most of the regulars on here, the state pension is only a part of their income and whether it goes up 6% or 8% is unlikely to have any material effect. (However as @xylophone points out that is not the case for many )

Surprised nobody has mentioned wealthy pensioner households getting a £500+ Winter Fuel Payment.
Maybe they will keep warm by buying a case of Malt Whiskey with it.

My stepfather and my wife's parents both make the same exact joke every year to me and we usually grit our teeth and offer a forced laugh.

I agree a more balanced representation of voters can only be a good thing, though unfortunately I don't expect we'll see any dramatic change in voter behaviours any time soon. The current system of a larger turnout of older people, causing a lean to policies which favour older people continues Ad Inifinitum. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame older people at all - if more younger people voted, you can expect them to vote for policies that benefit younger people. Everyone generally votes for policies that benefit them.

Which I could be willing to look the other way on, under the logic that at some point I'll be an older person and these same policies will benefit me, but as I said before, I fear an impending situation where State Pension in it's current incarnation will have to be cut. Everyone knows the triple lock is unsustainable and as I see it, it is not a matter of if it (the culling of the state pension) will happen, it's a matter of when - and I have no choice out of getting off of this runaway train, because NI is mandatory. I am forced to finance these 10.1% and 8.5% increases that I could only dream of seeing in my pay packet, while also knowing that there's a good chance in the future I'll be told "now it's your turn, sorry we realised it's too expensive, lucky you have saved up a private pension though."

(and yes, as xylophone points out, not all NI goes towards state pension)

michaels

Exodi said:

Albermarle said:

Exodi said:

Silvertabby said:

8.5% includes the one-off bonus to the likes of the NHS.  To be fair, this really isn't a true reflection of average pay rises - 7.8% sounds like a much more accurate figure.

As for the 2022 increase, the salary increase figure was artificially inflated due to those whose salaries had been reduced to 80% (during Covid) being restored back to their original 100%.  Not a true pay rise by any stretch of the imagination, so limiting that year's increase to CPI (being higher than the minimum 2.5%) seemed fair to me.  After all, I'm not aware of any pensioners who had their pension incomes reduced to 80% at that time. 

Spoken as a State pensioner. 

A lot of pension arguments made are emotive and with little heed to context like you have. I greatly admire your neutrality. Unfortunately I'm probably not so neutral.

As a full time employee in his 30s, I could have only dreamed of a 10.1% increase last year, or the suggested 8.5% this year.

It's not difficult to see why the triple-lock can not be sustainable long term. The current unfunded state and public pension liabilities are astronomical and ever-increasing. From a financial point of view this is correct, and all political parties know that.

The current system of effectively bribing pensioners with unsustainable pension increases, solely because they make up a significant part of voters that actually turn up to vote, is frustrating, but perhaps when I'm a pensioner I'll be happily to trade my vote for the same. The alternative is that more people in their Twenties and Thirties actually voted, which would be generally good for democracy.

I am loathed to pay National Insurance when there exists a remote possibility that the State Pension will eventually need to be cut down or means tested in the next few decades because it's simply unaffordable.

Of course, as someone said before, not likely to be a popular opinion on a board populated by a significant amount of pensioners. I would think that for most of the regulars on here, the state pension is only a part of their income and whether it goes up 6% or 8% is unlikely to have any material effect. (However as @xylophone points out that is not the case for many )

Surprised nobody has mentioned wealthy pensioner households getting a £500+ Winter Fuel Payment.
Maybe they will keep warm by buying a case of Malt Whiskey with it.

My stepfather and my wife's parents both make the same exact joke every year to me and we usually grit our teeth and offer a forced laugh.

I agree a more balanced representation of voters can only be a good thing, though unfortunately I don't expect we'll see any dramatic change in voter behaviours any time soon. The current system of a larger turnout of older people, causing a lean to policies which favour older people continues Ad Inifinitum. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame older people at all - if more younger people voted, you can expect them to vote for policies that benefit younger people. Everyone generally votes for policies that benefit them.

Which I could be willing to look the other way on, under the logic that at some point I'll be an older person and these same policies will benefit me, but as I said before, I fear an impending situation where State Pension in it's current incarnation will have to be cut. Everyone knows the triple lock is unsustainable and as I see it, it is not a matter of if it (the culling of the state pension) will happen, it's a matter of when - and I have no choice out of getting off of this runaway train, because NI is mandatory. I am forced to finance these 10.1% and 8.5% increases that I could only dream of seeing in my pay packet, while also knowing that there's a good chance in the future I'll be told "now it's your turn, sorry we realised it's too expensive, lucky you have saved up a private pension though."

(and yes, as xylophone points out, not all NI goes towards state pension)

None of mine goes to state pension and hasn't for 5 years, all that serps/S2p money I paid was completely wasted, whereas had I contracted out I could still get a full state pension and have a nice little pot on top - and I thought I a doing the decent thing leaving my money in the national pot

badmemory

What many younger tend to miss is that they almost all have access to pensions through their employment.  This for older people is only true for the few.  I had been working 30 years before I worked for an employer who ran a pension scheme, DC not DB.  Access to a private pension before the 80s was very limited, if you even knew they existed.  Then of course the now ex said you don't need a pension I will have more than enough for both of us - no pension sharing of course.  If only I could have accessed MSE back then.

But we also need to blame those who have made it impossible for a lot of middle earners to have more than one child or even the one whilst others have many & that is the various tory governments.  Do you really think Rishi would be where he is if his parents had been factory workers, intellegence has actually become in some ways irrelevant.

xylophone

None of mine goes to state pension and hasn't for 5 years, all that serps/S2p money I paid was completely wasted, whereas had I contracted out I could still get a full state pension 

I am somewhat puzzled by your comments above.  A previous post of yours

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6475488/what-are-the-civil-service-alpha-survivor-benefits

I have currently about £25k of civil service alpha if taken at 67, all with the 37.5% spousal benefit, my DW is older than me (so will reach SRA/Alpha standard payment age before I do).  I am trying to understand what she would receive were the worst to happen to me at various points:
1) Currently employed
2) If I were to stop working before 55 and obviously not have claimed any pension
3) If I had stopped working and was between 55 and 67 and had not claimed any pension
4) If I had stopped working and was between 55 and 67 and had taken the pension early with actuarial reduction

If you were in the CS scheme pre 6/4/2016 then you were contracted out.  It may be that you were not and the CS pension mentioned results in part from the transfer in  of your DC pension.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80295714/#Comment_80295714

And in what way were your SERPS/S2P "wasted"?

On 6/4/16 two calculations were done to establish your  "starting amount" for NSP

NI  qualifying years/30 x Full Basic SP + (SERPS/S2P - (if applicable) Deduction for Contracting Out)

(NIQY/35 x Full NSP) - (if applicable) Contracted Out Pension Equivalent.

Your "starting amount" was the higher of the two - in short, you have received all that you paid for!

Have you obtained a state pension forecast?

michaels

xylophone said:

None of mine goes to state pension and hasn't for 5 years, all that serps/S2p money I paid was completely wasted, whereas had I contracted out I could still get a full state pension 

I am somewhat puzzled by your comments above.  A previous post of yours

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6475488/what-are-the-civil-service-alpha-survivor-benefits

I have currently about £25k of civil service alpha if taken at 67, all with the 37.5% spousal benefit, my DW is older than me (so will reach SRA/Alpha standard payment age before I do).  I am trying to understand what she would receive were the worst to happen to me at various points:
1) Currently employed
2) If I were to stop working before 55 and obviously not have claimed any pension
3) If I had stopped working and was between 55 and 67 and had not claimed any pension
4) If I had stopped working and was between 55 and 67 and had taken the pension early with actuarial reduction

If you were in the CS scheme pre 6/4/2016 then you were contracted out.  It may be that you were not and the CS pension mentioned results in part from the transfer in  of your DC pension.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80295714/#Comment_80295714

And in what way were your SERPS/S2P "wasted"?

On 6/4/16 two calculations were done to establish your  "starting amount" for NSP

NI  qualifying years/30 x Full Basic SP + (SERPS/S2P - (if applicable) Deduction for Contracting Out)

(NIQY/35 x Full NSP) - (if applicable) Contracted Out Pension Equivalent.

Your "starting amount" was the higher of the two - in short, you have received all that you paid for!

Have you obtained a state pension forecast?

On 6/4/16 my old pension scheme contributions including serps/s2p put me at but not above the new state pension max.  Thus since that date although I continue to pay NI my state pension does not increase.  Had I instead contracted out then I would have the contracted out pot 'mine to keep' and my current NI payments would be increasing my state pension to the max level - thus either I have lost the serps/s2p contributions or my current contributions are worthless.  Could have contracted out but it seemed at the time to be less socially responsible to do so.

dealyboy

@Albermarle said:

Exodi said:

Silvertabby said:

8.5% includes the one-off bonus to the likes of the NHS.  To be fair, this really isn't a true reflection of average pay rises - 7.8% sounds like a much more accurate figure.

As for the 2022 increase, the salary increase figure was artificially inflated due to those whose salaries had been reduced to 80% (during Covid) being restored back to their original 100%.  Not a true pay rise by any stretch of the imagination, so limiting that year's increase to CPI (being higher than the minimum 2.5%) seemed fair to me.  After all, I'm not aware of any pensioners who had their pension incomes reduced to 80% at that time. 

Spoken as a State pensioner. 

A lot of pension arguments made are emotive and with little heed to context like you have. I greatly admire your neutrality. Unfortunately I'm probably not so neutral.

As a full time employee in his 30s, I could have only dreamed of a 10.1% increase last year, or the suggested 8.5% this year.

It's not difficult to see why the triple-lock can not be sustainable long term. The current unfunded state and public pension liabilities are astronomical and ever-increasing. From a financial point of view this is correct, and all political parties know that.

The current system of effectively bribing pensioners with unsustainable pension increases, solely because they make up a significant part of voters that actually turn up to vote, is frustrating, but perhaps when I'm a pensioner I'll be happily to trade my vote for the same. The alternative is that more people in their Twenties and Thirties actually voted, which would be generally good for democracy.

I am loathed to pay National Insurance when there exists a remote possibility that the State Pension will eventually need to be cut down or means tested in the next few decades because it's simply unaffordable.

Of course, as someone said before, not likely to be a popular opinion on a board populated by a significant amount of pensioners. I would think that for most of the regulars on here, the state pension is only a part of their income and whether it goes up 6% or 8% is unlikely to have any material effect. (However as @xylophone points out that is not the case for many )

Surprised nobody has mentioned wealthy pensioner households getting a £500+ Winter Fuel Payment.
Maybe they will keep warm by buying a case of Malt Whiskey with it.

I am certainly not wealthy but hope to receive £500 WFP shortly; this is the only 'benefit' I receive other than the state pension.

I will be splitting it between heating and drinking, Irish whiskey, Scots whisky ... and English whisky ... 🥴

Troytempest

Me to - when MrsT's WFP arrives I will be stocking up the Christmas wine cupboard (but I am £700 in credit on the fuel)

xylophone

On 6/4/16 my old pension scheme contributions including serps/s2p put me at but not above the new state pension max.  Thus since that date although I continue to pay NI my state pension does not increase.  Had I instead contracted out then I would have the contracted out pot 'mine to keep' and my current NI payments would be increasing my state pension to the max level - thus either I have lost the serps/s2p contributions or my current contributions are worthless.  Could have contracted out but it seemed at the time to be less socially responsible to do so.

I don't follow the "less socially responsible argument" - were those contracted out into a DB scheme "less socially responsible"?

If you had contracted out into a personal pension, you would have received payments into your fund as explained here.

https://www.pensiontracingservice.com/contracting-out#:~:text=By contracting out pension, both,from the additional state pension.

If you had contracted out. there would have been a deduction when calculating your Starting Amount as explained in my previous.

Your subsequent NI contributions could then only have improved your SA up to (but not in excess of) a full NSP - after that, if working and earning the relevant amount, you would still have had to pay NI up to SPA.

And with regard to your DC pension. it would appear to have bought a generous amount of pension in the CS DB scheme - this will be fully index linked up to and beyond claiming your benefits (in around twelve years time)?

It seems to me that you have little to complain about.

Eldi_Dos

Pat38493 said:
   Most state pensioners are not working anymore and don’t have to make any continuing contribution to national productivity 

One of the reasons you are able to post is there is more than one state pensioner who helped build the information superhighway and the infrastructure that allows us all to communicate, greatly helping national productivity. I do not think it is unfair to expect to share in the wealth being created rather than be treated as a pariah when they reach SPA.
Many of us state pensioners still pay taxes and we vote, so politicians take note of that.