Should the triple lock be scrapped in the 6 March Budget?

westv

No it should be kept

I'd be interested to know how much of the SP gets recycled back to government via VAT, income tax from employees where money is spent, income tax from pensioners, and taxes paid by companies where money is spent.

coastline

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

booneruk

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

Those on the old pension generally enjoyed SERPS / DB pensions from their employer. As a 40 something I wish to hell I engaged with a private pension in my 20s. It took auto enrolment to get me on board, which is something we shouldn't forget when looking to the future. I would be against means testing the SP though.

It's going to take a gusty government to remove the triple lock, an aging population, the % of elderly who vote and 16+ pages of this chat demonstrates why.

Anything that grows as a % of GDP year on year is a problem, which is why I think it will be very interesting when it comes to manifesto time later this year.

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

Why not develop something sustainable instead of keeping on raising the pension age squeezing future generations harder and harder?

Hoenir

No it should be kept

BlackKnightMonty said:

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

Why not develop something sustainable instead of keeping on raising the pension age squeezing future generations harder and harder?

People are generally living longer and longer. Thereby requiring ever increasing costly levels of healthcare provision. If people wish to retire early then onus should be on them to fund it themselves. 

coastline

MattMattMattUK said:

coastline said:

Grumpy_chap said:

coastline said:

Never said they would honour it . Read back . It's under 20% of government spend , those are the figures. . It's been upgraded to help people in retirement survive using their own money. The second pension has also been encouraged to supplement this. DB pensions are fading fast so DC pots have taken their place. That doesn't mean everyone will be well off ? Maybe reduces the benefits paid out . All swings and roundabouts . Those in rental accommodation are rising fast together with BTL we are talking 30% plus of the housing stock. Millions. Plenty links out there to confirm this. Unfortunately a second pension won't help them as it'll be swallowed up in rent. Many might still be claiming benefits ? There's no real policy from any party just the same old tinkering . That's all they'll do play around with increases on the day.  

Triple lock was introduced 2011 and if it's linked to GDP then there's hardly been any change either side of 5%. Blue on the chart. Maybe a blip during covid but that was an extreme case. 

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/PxWZ6WkL/ukgs-chart-Sp42t.png[/img]

ukgs_chartSp42t.png (350×230) (ukpublicspending.co.uk)

Throw some average salaries to this but as I said it's been upgraded recently for a genuine reason . There again the retirement age continues to go up. Somebody mentioned perks earlier well the buss pass is now 66 yo from 60 yo.

Basic State Pension (Rate) - Royal London for advisers

That is a very difficult post to read.

20% of Government spend is £1 in every £5.  Quite a high proportion for any single line item.

The chart you shared for SP costs versus GDP shows 4% up to 2010 and then risen to 6% before falling back to 5%.  Still an increase and, eventually, that increase against GDP will become unsustainable - a point that has been expressed by several posters and you have refused to acknowledge.

I ain't refusing to acknowledge the triple lock . It's there for a purpose which can be altered anytime they like and it will be. Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

You are making the incorrect assumption that lower taxes benefit everyone, or even the majority of people, in general it only benefits a very small group of people. Have a look at living standards and provision of public services in countries which charge higher taxes than the UK, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, Japan etc. Want to see your doctor? One gets an appointment within a day or two, often the same day. Want your children to go to school? One's children are taught by qualified teachers, in well maintained buildings, with adequate staffing levels. Want to drive your car? Drive on roads which are adequately maintained despite far worse seasonal weather. Are the victim of a crime? The police have enough resources to investigate further than just issuing a crime reference number. Want to have a career whilst having children? The state provides childcare, at a far lower cost overall for everyone. Need to go into a care home? No extra charges. Yes everyone pays slightly more tax, but overall society benefits far far more than individuals would from a few percentage points less paid in tax. 

coastline said:
The next thread will be scrapping the 25% lump sum in the private pension or reducing the contribution perks to basic rate income tax. 

The first part is largely a bribe to retirees, yes it might benefit some (but far from even a majority), however it also costs the taxpayer and that money would be better invested. On the latter that is an argument that higher earners receive greater subsidy, as someone who directly benefits from that I still cannot argue for it's existence from a moral perspective. 

coastline said:
Income tax was 38% years ago and now 20% .

Income tax has varied over time, combined with NI the rate for non-pensioners is 30% (20%IC + 10%NI) which is low by European standards and we also get a huge tax free allowance by European, or even global standards, the EU average is €1,800 tax free allowance and a starting rate of 38%, in many cases with compulsory health insurance on top.

coastline said:
VAT was 5% and now 20% 

It was, but then on balance goods are still now cheap by historical standards, that VAT has also meant that other taxes have not needed to have been raised as much (fuel duty has not been raised for years).

coastline said:
Central government withdrew funding for the council tax so the local authorities put it up. It just goes on and on. 

Central government withdrew between 50% and 75% of council funding over two years, then further cut payments after that, councils have raised Council Tax at about 3% for the last decade, so they still have far less revenue than 14 years ago. My local council as an example has gets zero grant from central government, loses 40% of it's business rates (other councils get to keep 100%) and has below average council tax because they are limited by the percentage that they can raise it each year. Which is why social services are collapsing and the roads are disintegrating. 

coastline said:
List is endless.

You can throw together an endless list of things, but if none of them are relevant in isolation, or they ignore fiscal reality then it is a pointless list. 

I've made no assumptions about lower taxes . The examples I've given show the way things have gone over the years. Paid less income tax but more VAT for example . In one hand and out the other. The state pension has gone up recently and why not ? It won't last we all know that. The government implemented the rises not the general public. It's a boost in the hope it benefits all in the future. The new state pension but of course retirement age is going up to pay for it. People are encouraged to save further in a second pension. That should benefit many but not all as millions don't own their home. They'll need every penny of SP .That's another difficult hurdle to address. 

coastline

BlackKnightMonty said:

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

Why not develop something sustainable instead of keeping on raising the pension age squeezing future generations harder and harder?

65 yo was long enough I totally agree .

coastline

booneruk said:

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

Those on the old pension generally enjoyed SERPS / DB pensions from their employer. As a 40 something I wish to hell I engaged with a private pension in my 20s. It took auto enrolment to get me on board, which is something we shouldn't forget when looking to the future. I would be against means testing the SP though.

It's going to take a gusty government to remove the triple lock, an aging population, the % of elderly who vote and 16+ pages of this chat demonstrates why.

Anything that grows as a % of GDP year on year is a problem, which is why I think it will be very interesting when it comes to manifesto time later this year.

Well I can answer that and the SP plus 27 years of DB service pension doesn't even add up to £20K in my case. Not all gold plated then ? Probably a few grand above benefits claims . There you go . Not everyone is minted with final salary pensions. I know plenty people similar to me. I was born in an industrial area . Factory work, mining , steel and shipyards , hospitals, civil servants . A variety of work and the people I know all say the same . If you're lucky enough you just have to save a few bob to retire early. Nothing changes. 

hyubh

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

Those on the old pension generally enjoyed SERPS / DB pensions from their employer. As a 40 something I wish to hell I engaged with a private pension in my 20s. It took auto enrolment to get me on board, which is something we shouldn't forget when looking to the future. I would be against means testing the SP though.

It's going to take a gusty government to remove the triple lock, an aging population, the % of elderly who vote and 16+ pages of this chat demonstrates why.

Anything that grows as a % of GDP year on year is a problem, which is why I think it will be very interesting when it comes to manifesto time later this year.

Well I can answer that and the SP plus 27 years of DB service pension doesn't even add up to £20K in my case. 

Curious of the the details... even assuming a pre-2016 SPA and no SERPS/S2P, the full basic state pension is currently £8122.40 pa (27 years might imply some additional state pension too however?) So the DB pension can't be more than £11.K or so. Final pensionable salary in current money of around £28K? Or maybe a bit higher, but you had a nice lump sum...? Maybe you were part time...?

Nothing changes. 

Hmm, bit easy to say when you yourself have benefitted from a DB pension...

coastline

hyubh said:

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

booneruk said:

coastline said:

Beats me why posters want something stopping when it benefits everyone. 

Spending that's on an unsustainable trend certainly does not benefit everyone. Pensions and health spending are going to be huge problems in the future.

Read between the lines the triple lock isn't a permanent fixture. When the government decide it's ran it's course they'll create another formula etc etc. At best basic SP is £11K and remember there's an old and a new pension so most get different payments at the moment. 

Those on the old pension generally enjoyed SERPS / DB pensions from their employer. As a 40 something I wish to hell I engaged with a private pension in my 20s. It took auto enrolment to get me on board, which is something we shouldn't forget when looking to the future. I would be against means testing the SP though.

It's going to take a gusty government to remove the triple lock, an aging population, the % of elderly who vote and 16+ pages of this chat demonstrates why.

Anything that grows as a % of GDP year on year is a problem, which is why I think it will be very interesting when it comes to manifesto time later this year.

Well I can answer that and the SP plus 27 years of DB service pension doesn't even add up to £20K in my case. 

Curious of the the details... even assuming a pre-2016 SPA and no SERPS/S2P, the full basic state pension is currently £8122.40 pa (27 years might imply some additional state pension too however?) So the DB pension can't be more than £11.K or so. Final pensionable salary in current money of around £28K? Or maybe a bit higher, but you had a nice lump sum...? Maybe you were part time...?

Nothing changes. 

Hmm, bit easy to say when you yourself have benefitted from a DB pension...

I paid 6% of salary to get a second pension . I was lucky it was DB but they are less and less these days . It's single figures and I know loads of people with similar stories. I've paid extra NI to boost the pension but won't break even until 70 yo on that bit. The point is with say £10K SP plus another pension many aren't that far above the benefits available to those with no second pension. Yes it's a few grand. Millions of people end up with deferred DB pensions . Could be many reasons . Nice if can you get 40 years in until 65 yo but that's not the case in general. Many have been made redundant in their 50's and need another job. It happens.

The new state pension £11,500 a year together with a £250K pension pot should see you with £20K a year. Not fantastic but manageable and more than millions today who have DB pensions. Yes some get way more. That £250K pot there'll be an employer contribution and sometimes as much as 8% matching. There's four in my family with 8% plus 8% matching so not bad. Pity the SP age is going up but I had to wait until 66yo . Any extra cash I've saved is in an investment ISA. Nothing new then.