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

stripling

No it should be kept

NorfolkCanary said:

stripling said:

No it wouldn't, that's irrelevant to what is effectively one of the lowest state pensions in Europe. It was originally introduced because of pensioner poverty.  

Please be aware of the political 'excuses' for cutting in various ways, often driven by those who promote private pensions. Also 'workers' / young people retire so it is their loss further down the line. Perhaps wages should increase more, but that is a separate discussion from the state pension.

We used to have the 'intergenerational fairness' line promoted as an excuse to cut pensions (it originated in from a hedge fund owner in the US). That has quietened down now for similar reasons - the young get old. 

Pensions are taxed so anyone who has any other income pays tax so it returns to the state. If you are worried about state funding then maybe target those who move their assets offshore or into trusts in 'tax avoidance' schemes. There's plenty of holes in the top end of the tax bucket. 

Pensioners no longer have access to council housing and do not qualify for full housing benefit either - the numbers of pensioners in poverty and insecure, substandard housing, including only renting rooms not flats, is only going to increase. Plus they will have no "assets" to pay for social care if needed.

Be very wary of the rhetoric that plays one group off against the other with the end goal of cutting back the state. It is this very move that leaves us with a pot-holed, broken infrastructure, shattered NHS and decimated public services, state.  It doesn't actually have to be this way. 

Why didn't those currently in receipt of S.P. save enough for themselves via PAYE or N.I.? Or counter the govt. directive over cuts? Was there a lack of critical thinking? Seems as if I'm alright jack, pull up the ladder for the rest.
My N.I. contributions don't provide a pot for myself, it goes to the generation or two above, who didn't save enough, that isn't right.

Be aware when mentioning tax, when the top 1/3rd or is it10%? pay roughly 2/3rds or so of the total tax take. Is that not already fair?
Many people no longer have access to council housing, mainly because the previous generations benefited from cheap council house sell-offs and banked the profits, without a second thought about ensuring replacement. Not to mention profiteering from privatisation of the utilities and other nationally owned assets.

And don't forget as soon as anyone mentions trying to resolve the issue of grey brigade, the rag tops and right wing papers jump up and down on the bandwagon to protect their voting pool.

First, the older generations didn't have access to the information. No internet, no public information campaigns, nothing. 
Women, in particular, lost out on many things, were not even permitted mortgages in their own names without their husband's backing until around the 1980s and often didn't earn enough either. Very few women went to university for example. Women's careers were, and often still are, hammered by childcare or divorce. 

As for the political changes, council house sell offs etc., I agree that shouldn't have happened but most didn't really know or understand the implications - that Mrs Thatcher wouldn't allow the councils to use the money to build more houses. It was never promoted publicly and the press wasn't saying anything.  The whole political rhetoric at the time was that 'state' services = bad/inefficient and "privatisation" was "best". People believed it. They weren't raised to ask questions or step out of line. 

Those same people will probably lose those houses to pay for their social care when they get old and needy. It's called Asset-based welfare. It's a theory meant to plug the gaps left by the decimation of state services by privatisation. Sadly, it means that the trust funders escape with an inheritance and the "just about managing" home owning people lose their homes. 

As for the top % of wealthy - they pay lawyers to 'avoid' tax - trust funds (again) and offshore accounts for example - likewise many big companies - Amazon, for example. There's a great book called Private Islands (I think there may be a free YouTube documentary of the same name) that's worth a read on tax havens and the City of London. 

Andy_L

Yes it should be scrapped

Silvertabby said:

Agree CPI only.   But haven't both party leaders already said that they will honour the current triple lock?  

Changing the linking to CPI (instead of salary) back in the 80s was what got us into the problem of the state pension withering on the vine

MattMattMattUK

Yes it should be scrapped

squirrelpie said:

Everybody is ignoring both history and experience. The pledge was made at a time when the pension was historically low and was intended to ensure that it increased back to a more sensible level. So there's a question of whether it has got there and if so what should replace it. That's the historical bit. Recent experience has shown that inflation and wages work in different ways and that basing an increase on the past year's values effectively means double-counting inflations spikes, because the wage rise spike follows the inflation rise. So again, what should replace it? Evidently not just some one or two factors from the present formula.

But is there anybody in the government who is smart enough to come up with a replacement that both pensioners and not-yet-pensioners will willingly accept? What are the various parties promising after the next election?

Is the electorate grown up enough to accept that if we want to make the state pension affordable there will have to be a generation that gain the benefit without paying for it. 

barnstar2077

Yes it should be scrapped

I will be very dependant on the state pension in my old age, but have to admit that the 2.5% bit doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Fingers crossed it is still in place by the time I retire though! :  )

Hoenir

No it should be kept

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

This is a question that needs to put to the electorate at a General Election. Nothing what so ever to do with a fiscal budget. 

molerat

Hoenir said:

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

This is a question that needs to put to the electorate at a General Election. Nothing what so ever to do with a fiscal budget. 

That has pretty much already happened for the next one.  The only 2 parties that have any possibility of forming a government have both intimated the triple lock will stay.

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

stripling said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

eskbanker said:

BlackKnightMonty said:
Should the triple lock be scrapped in the 6 March Budget?

As above, what alternative options are you proposing, and on what grounds?

I think linking it / limiting it to worker’s average pay rise would make a great deal of sense.

No it wouldn't, that's irrelevant to what is effectively one of the lowest state pensions in Europe. It was originally introduced because of pensioner poverty.  

Please be aware of the political 'excuses' for cutting in various ways, often driven by those who promote private pensions. Also 'workers' / young people retire so it is their loss further down the line. Perhaps wages should increase more, but that is a separate discussion from the state pension.

We used to have the 'intergenerational fairness' line promoted as an excuse to cut pensions (it originated in from a hedge fund owner in the US). That has quietened down now for similar reasons - the young get old. 

Pensions are taxed so anyone who has any other income pays tax so it returns to the state. If you are worried about state funding then maybe target those who move their assets offshore or into trusts in 'tax avoidance' schemes. There's plenty of holes in the top end of the tax bucket. 

Pensioners no longer have access to council housing and do not qualify for full housing benefit either - the numbers of pensioners in poverty and insecure, substandard housing, including only renting rooms not flats, is only going to increase. Plus they will have no "assets" to pay for social care if needed.

Be very wary of the rhetoric that plays one group off against the other with the end goal of cutting back the state. It is this very move that leaves us with a pot-holed, broken infrastructure, shattered NHS and decimated public services, state.  It doesn't actually have to be this way. 

Um, there’s a lot there to unpick. I don’t want to get into the intergenerational stuff.

My understanding is that there isn’t a state pension pot, it comes from general taxation.

So current generation pays for the previous generation. (More or less).

My original point about caping SP rises is guided by this principal;  that the current generation look after the previous generation.

sounds fair. But what doesn’t make sense, or sound fair, is for SP to rise at a faster rate than the current generations pay growth. If it does then the current generations get squeezed to the betterment of pensioners.

I have to say, that doesn’t sound very fair.

Eldi_Dos

molerat said:

Hoenir said:

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

This is a question that needs to put to the electorate at a General Election. Nothing what so ever to do with a fiscal budget. 

That has pretty much already happened for the next one.  The only 2 parties that have any possibility of forming a government have both intimated the triple lock will stay.

Unless we end up with a coalition government,would be a bit ironic if a coalition removed it.
Only Nixon could go to Peking after all.

BlackKnightMonty

Yes it should be scrapped

NorfolkCanary said:

stripling said:

No it wouldn't, that's irrelevant to what is effectively one of the lowest state pensions in Europe. It was originally introduced because of pensioner poverty.  

Please be aware of the political 'excuses' for cutting in various ways, often driven by those who promote private pensions. Also 'workers' / young people retire so it is their loss further down the line. Perhaps wages should increase more, but that is a separate discussion from the state pension.

We used to have the 'intergenerational fairness' line promoted as an excuse to cut pensions (it originated in from a hedge fund owner in the US). That has quietened down now for similar reasons - the young get old. 

Pensions are taxed so anyone who has any other income pays tax so it returns to the state. If you are worried about state funding then maybe target those who move their assets offshore or into trusts in 'tax avoidance' schemes. There's plenty of holes in the top end of the tax bucket. 

Pensioners no longer have access to council housing and do not qualify for full housing benefit either - the numbers of pensioners in poverty and insecure, substandard housing, including only renting rooms not flats, is only going to increase. Plus they will have no "assets" to pay for social care if needed.

Be very wary of the rhetoric that plays one group off against the other with the end goal of cutting back the state. It is this very move that leaves us with a pot-holed, broken infrastructure, shattered NHS and decimated public services, state.  It doesn't actually have to be this way. 

Why didn't those currently in receipt of S.P. save enough for themselves via PAYE or N.I.? Or counter the govt. directive over cuts? Was there a lack of critical thinking? Seems as if I'm alright jack, pull up the ladder for the rest.
My N.I. contributions don't provide a pot for myself, it goes to the generation or two above, who didn't save enough, that isn't right.

Be aware when mentioning tax, when the top 1/3rd or is it10%? pay roughly 2/3rds or so of the total tax take. Is that not already fair?
Many people no longer have access to council housing, mainly because the previous generations benefited from cheap council house sell-offs and banked the profits, without a second thought about ensuring replacement. Not to mention profiteering from privatisation of the utilities and other nationally owned assets.

And don't forget as soon as anyone mentions trying to resolve the issue of grey brigade, the rag tops and right wing papers jump up and down on the bandwagon to protect their voting pool.

It’s around half of uk households who are net benefiters after tax / benefits are calculated. This figure has grown since Covid. I don’t know how sustainable that is.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2022

QrizB

One option would be to link NSP to NMW. If you set the full weekly NSP as a certain number of hours of adult NMW, you could move away from the triple lock.

You could link UC to NMW too, if you wanted to bring every adult under the same regime.