"Average Earnings Growth" and triple lock

BlackKnightMonty

michaels said:

Cobbler_tone said:

It's funny reading the guess work ahead of a rise that doesn't happen until next year for people who don't generally need it. 

Why would it not generally be needed? Do you have data showing almost all pensioners already earn more than 60% of average household income?

What nonsense is this?

Cobbler_tone

michaels said:

Cobbler_tone said:

It's funny reading the guess work ahead of a rise that doesn't happen until next year for people who don't generally need it. 

Why would it not generally be needed? Do you have data showing almost all pensioners already earn more than 60% of average household income?

Apologies...I forgot humour was all but banned on the MSE Forum. 
A light hearted reference to the silver generation.

BlackKnightMonty

Cobbler_tone said:

michaels said:

Cobbler_tone said:

It's funny reading the guess work ahead of a rise that doesn't happen until next year for people who don't generally need it. 

Why would it not generally be needed? Do you have data showing almost all pensioners already earn more than 60% of average household income?

Apologies...I forgot humour was all but banned on the MSE Forum. 
A light hearted reference to the silver generation.

You mean the platinum (card) generation?

Exodi

Stubod said:

..as long as it is CPI H..!!!!

Forgive me, but how would that be fair? The housing element of CPIH includes rent and mortgage interest?

Around 3/4s of pensioners own their homes outright, with the small remainder either having a tiny outstanding mortgage, being social renters or a very small percentage (about 1/20) being private renters.

It would be hard to justify increasing pensioner income inline with mortgage/rent increases, when only a single digit percentage of pensioners pay it, no?

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-pensioner-incomes-and-poverty-changed-recent-years~
(source: data in the introduction section).

Yes, I know CPIH also includes Council Tax and other relatively minor housing costs.

michaels

Cobbler_tone said:

michaels said:

Cobbler_tone said:

It's funny reading the guess work ahead of a rise that doesn't happen until next year for people who don't generally need it. 

Why would it not generally be needed? Do you have data showing almost all pensioners already earn more than 60% of average household income?

Apologies...I forgot humour was all but banned on the MSE Forum. 
A light hearted reference to the silver generation.

Whoosh...doh!

MK62

Exodi said:

Stubod said:

..as long as it is CPI H..!!!!

Forgive me, but how would that be fair? The housing element of CPIH includes rent and mortgage interest?

Around 3/4s of pensioners own their homes outright, with the small remainder either having a tiny outstanding mortgage, being social renters or a very small percentage (about 1/20) being private renters.

It would be hard to justify increasing pensioner income inline with mortgage/rent increases, when only a single digit percentage of pensioners pay it, no?

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-pensioner-incomes-and-poverty-changed-recent-years~
(source: data in the introduction section).

Yes, I know CPIH also includes Council Tax and other relatively minor housing costs.

....but the number of pensioner homeowners is set to fall significantly over the coming years and the number of pensioner private renters is set to rise as a consequence......plus, pensioner homeowners pay council tax, so would it be fair to restrict state pension increases to basic CPI alone?

Exodi

MK62 said:

Exodi said:

Stubod said:

..as long as it is CPI H..!!!!

Forgive me, but how would that be fair? The housing element of CPIH includes rent and mortgage interest?

Around 3/4s of pensioners own their homes outright, with the small remainder either having a tiny outstanding mortgage, being social renters or a very small percentage (about 1/20) being private renters.

It would be hard to justify increasing pensioner income inline with mortgage/rent increases, when only a single digit percentage of pensioners pay it, no?

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-pensioner-incomes-and-poverty-changed-recent-years~
(source: data in the introduction section).

Yes, I know CPIH also includes Council Tax and other relatively minor housing costs.

....but the number of pensioner homeowners is set to fall significantly over the coming years and the number of pensioner private renters is set to rise as a consequence......plus, pensioner homeowners pay council tax, so would it be fair to restrict state pension increases to basic CPI alone?

Then perhaps consider increasing it by CPIH in the future... it's nonsense to even suggest it while only 5% of pensioners are private renters.

Just think about the optics of asking taxpayers of whom are currently paying eye-watering rent/mortgages, to pay for uprating of pension benefits in line with rent/mortgages increases, despite pensioners being nearly all owner occupiers with no mortgage. Even more ironically, the taxpayers landlords are likely to be the people they're being asked to pay the uprating too...

I already touched upon Council Tax as I suspected it would be used as excuse - it's a relatively minor proponent of CPIH - my mortgage is 7.5x my council tax.

FWIW, significantly more pensioners receive Child Benefit than pay rent/mortgages. Why not pay all pensioners Child Benefit, regardless of whether they have children? That's effectively what's being asked here. People are having children later after all, so the number of pensioner child benefit receivers is set to rise as a consequence.

It's nonsense and this type of shameless greed is exactly the reason we're stuck on this triple lock rollercoaster to ruin to begin with. 

GunJack

Exodi said:

MK62 said

FWIW, significantly more pensioners receive Child Benefit than pay rent/mortgages. Why not pay all pensioners Child Benefit, regardless of whether they have children? That's effectively what's being asked here. People are having children later after all, so the number of pensioner child benefit receivers is set to rise as a consequence.

It's nonsense and this type of shameless greed is exactly the reason we're stuck on this triple lock rollercoaster to ruin to begin with. 

Really? Where does that come from???

artyboy

BlackKnightMonty said:

Cobbler_tone said:

michaels said:

Cobbler_tone said:

It's funny reading the guess work ahead of a rise that doesn't happen until next year for people who don't generally need it. 

Why would it not generally be needed? Do you have data showing almost all pensioners already earn more than 60% of average household income?

Apologies...I forgot humour was all but banned on the MSE Forum. 
A light hearted reference to the silver generation.

You mean the platinum (card) generation?

Platinum? Aspirational mass-affluent nonsense. Go Black or go home... with extra points if it's made out of metal and can't be used in the fuel pumps at Costco 

Secret2ndAccount

How should we determine what the level of the State Pension should be?
● What we were promised when we paid in (how much was that)?
● Equivalent of 40 hours at National Minimum Wage?
● What it is now, with small uplifts for inflation?
● To each according to their need...?
● Equal to jobseekers allowance but without the requirement to look for work?
● 50% of the National Insurance take, divided by the number of pensioners alive?

It seems to me that, if the idea is simply to stand still, then the pension should increase in line with wages only. If inflation exceeds pay rises then we all suffer, and pensioners should do their bit. My understanding was that the triple lock was intended to add a steady increase to the level of the SP because it was too low. When my father retired he received benefits on top of his pension because a full SP was considered too little for a person to live on.