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

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

Hoenir said:

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.

Not anymore.

MattMattMattUK

Yes it should be scrapped

BlackKnightMonty said:

Hoenir said:

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.

Not anymore.

There is a minor anomaly caused by Covid slightly increasing the death rate, however even with the expected impact of lifestyle diseases the long term trend will likely to continue upwards, though at a reduced pace. The biggest issues will however come from the huge rise in obesity and the strain that it is putting on the health service, the life expectancy will continue rising but the number of healthy years people have is already starting to decline, increases in T2 diabetes, circulatory conditions and joint damage are putting more and more strain on the health service and doing so earlier in people's lives than ever before. That, combined with diseases of aging such as dementia and cancer create a particularly expensive problem that we will have to solve.

af1963

Yes it should be scrapped

Triple lock is a deliberate policy choice to gradually increase the value of the standard state pension. Even with triple lock, the current flat rate system is forecast to cost less than the old basic+SERPS system. 

The biggest beneficiaries of triple lock (or any pension rises) are those who will receive the increased pensions for longest - that's younger people, not current retirees.

There may come a time when the pension has reached a level that voters and politicians think is appropriate, and doesn't need further boosts relative to the working population

Something similar to triple lock, but without the "ratchet" mechanism, could be used.  Making the index-linking work on a long-term basis would do it - after a baseline date, you'd guarantee the pension would rise to match the higher of the  cumulative increase in wages or CPI from that point onwards.  So you wouldn't look at which was higher each year, you'd look at the change since the baseline date.

(So if wages went up 5% in the first year, with zero inflation, pensions would go up 5%.  But if the next year wages didn;t rise but inflation was 4%, there'd be no further increase for pensioners because they're still better off than in the baseline year and have had the same overall 'pay rise' as the rest of the population since then.)

Means pensioners would share in rising income if the rest of the population was seeing above-inflation wage rises, but otherwise would just be protected against inflation since the baseline year.

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

MattMattMattUK said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Hoenir said:

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.

Not anymore.

There is a minor anomaly caused by Covid slightly increasing the death rate, however even with the expected impact of lifestyle diseases the long term trend will likely to continue upwards, though at a reduced pace. The biggest issues will however come from the huge rise in obesity and the strain that it is putting on the health service, the life expectancy will continue rising but the number of healthy years people have is already starting to decline, increases in T2 diabetes, circulatory conditions and joint damage are putting more and more strain on the health service and doing so earlier in people's lives than ever before. That, combined with diseases of aging such as dementia and cancer create a particularly expensive problem that we will have to solve.

The fall in life expectancy started before Covid.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/generator?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2020to2022/b8697a35&format=xls

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

af1963 said:

The biggest beneficiaries of triple lock (or any pension rises) are those who will receive the increased pensions for longest - that's younger people, not current retirees.

Young people are likely to face a means tested SP, and even if eligible unlikely to receive it until +70yrs!

QrizB

BlackKnightMonty said:

Young people are likely to face a means tested SP

Citation required.

It's an idea that's commonly floated on this board, bit no-one has come up with any evidence that it's a proposal.

BlackKnightMonty said:

. . and even if eligible unlikely to receive it until +70yrs!

That's possible, but would suggest life expectancy exceeding 90 years at retirement age.

We could go back to retiring at 65 (or earlier!) if we can reduce life expectancy enough. But that seems a bit backwards?

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

QrizB said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Young people are likely to face a means tested SP

Citation required.

It's an idea that's commonly floated on this board, bit no-one has come up with any evidence that it's a proposal.

I didn’t say it was a proposal. I said they are likely to. That’s my opinion based on the frequency it comes up in the wider pension debate.

 https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/26/britain-rich-pensioners-state-pension-age-68-poor

Given other countries (like Australia) have a means tested SP already, it seems likely to happen here too.

https://www.dss.gov.au/seniors/benefits-payments/age-pension#:~:text=The%20Age%20Pension%20is%20designed,Australian%20price%20and%20wage%20increases.

donnac2558

No it should be kept

Yesterday the Daily Mail had an article, no doubt to enrage their readers.  Yes, the triple lock and how in a few years it means SP will be £13,000 per year.  Oh, and there is no doubt which ever government in power will not get rid of it.

The comments saying so what?  That amount of money per year is nothing really when you look at the price of food, heating etc even today, and it will no doubt prices will continue to rise.

A few weeks back in The Guardian they had an article about the continued rise in the pension age.  The age of 70 was mention, saying the government was no doubt looking at this in a few years.  But, people yes living longer but many even if they keep raising the pension age will not be able to work due to ill health and will be claiming ESA or other sickness benefits before reaching the SP.

GibbsRule_No3.

No it should be kept

A few weeks back in The Guardian they had an article about the continued rise in the pension age.  The age of 70 was mention, saying the government was no doubt looking at this in a few years.  But, people yes living longer but many even if they keep raising the pension age will not be able to work due to ill health and will be claiming ESA or other sickness benefits before reaching the SP.

If 50 is the new 40, then 70 is the new 60, so perhaps the age should be 75?

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

donnac2558 said:

Yesterday the Daily Mail had an article, no doubt to enrage their readers.  Yes, the triple lock and how in a few years it means SP will be £13,000 per year.  Oh, and there is no doubt which ever government in power will not get rid of it.

The comments saying so what?  That amount of money per year is nothing really when you look at the price of food, heating etc even today, and it will no doubt prices will continue to rise.

A few weeks back in The Guardian they had an article about the continued rise in the pension age.  The age of 70 was mention, saying the government was no doubt looking at this in a few years.  But, people yes living longer but many even if they keep raising the pension age will not be able to work due to ill health and will be claiming ESA or other sickness benefits before reaching the SP.

You’d need an annuity of £325,000 to get £13k a year. How many people contributed that in NI over their working life (even accounting for compounding).

Multiply that by 12.8 million pensioners and that is a pot size of £4.16bn with no extra fat.

But that pot doesn’t exist. There is no pot. It comes from General Taxation. The current generation pays for previous generations. Except this current generation has been rinsed by previous generations. The BTL renting empires, student fees, student debt, frozen tax levels, child benefit caps/tapers/removals. The list is huge.

The triple lock rises are not sustainable. Which is why the retirement age keeps going up.

Better to make some modest tweeks now before it implodes.

Oh, and people aren’t living longer, and no life expectancy was falling pre-covid.