The inevitable pre-budget speculation on pensions

Linton

michaels said:

Presumably as the triple lock basically fixes the state pension relative to average income, the overall cost as a share of GDP will simply reflect demographics?

The 2.5% part of the triple lock so far is only responsible for a very small increase since CPI or earnings have in most years increased by more.

From the data up til now the real reason for the increasing size of the SP above both inflation and earnings is actually the double lock.  For example if there is 10% inflation in one year with low earnings growth followed in the following year by 10% earnings growth with low inflation SP would increase by 21%.

It seems reasonable that over the medium/long term the SP should increase by the larger of earnings and inflation but the current method based on an annual increase is perhaps not the best way of achieving that.

Cobbler_tone

Albermarle said:

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

Predicted effect on next election - very small.

Agree on that. I'm not sure however how you start from a base of already being pretty unpopular, having to u-turn on things like the WFA allowance etc. Then 'potentially' making people worse off in taxes, pensions etc and then suddenly becoming the most popular choice. 
I think the need for instant gratification is bigger than ever. It makes it even harder to 'stick' when the competition can pretty much feed the narrative that many people want to hear, before the inevitable "there is no magic wand" quote.
Maybe we are all a little guilty on getting on the budget hype train and not sure any genuine (strategic) leaks have been published yet. They will know that can't just make a raft of changes to make everyone significantly worse off, either now or in the future. It is not conducive to a successful economy.  

Eldi_Dos

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

While I have sympathy for people caught in that situation, you need to remember that here as well as other democracies there is a swing to a more populist view. I would suggest that many of the have nots would take a bit of delight in people they perceive to be have lots suffering a bit, not the nicest part of human nature.

Indeed there seem to be strategists in parts of the world who think one lost vote like yours is worth more votes among the have nots.

BlackKnightMonty

Eldi_Dos said:

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

While I have sympathy for people caught in that situation, you need to remember that here as well as other democracies there is a swing to a more populist view. I would suggest that many of the have nots would take a bit of delight in people they perceive to be have lots suffering a bit, not the nicest part of human nature.

Indeed there seem to be strategists in parts of the world who think one lost vote like yours is worth more votes among the have nots.

Who are you referring to, the 13million State Pensioners, the 9.4million of working age not working, or both?

Eldi_Dos

BlackKnightMonty said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

While I have sympathy for people caught in that situation, you need to remember that here as well as other democracies there is a swing to a more populist view. I would suggest that many of the have nots would take a bit of delight in people they perceive to be have lots suffering a bit, not the nicest part of human nature.

Indeed there seem to be strategists in parts of the world who think one lost vote like yours is worth more votes among the have nots.

Who are you referring to, the 13million State Pensioners, the 9.4million of working age not working, or both?

I think I was referring to a certain mindset rather than a specific demographic, especially one that will have a very broad range of affluence.

ClashCityRocker1

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

hugheskevi

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

ClashCityRocker1

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

BlackKnightMonty

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

ClashCityRocker1

But it doesn't have to be a binary choice between pensions and child benefit does it?