Triple lock increase for April 2027 is 3.9% (probably)

Exodi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82176775#Comment_82176775

Agreed - I've only seen more easily understood and digestible arguments about 'war on pensioners' and the like. I imagine opposition parties realise these vacuous statements get better engagement from the general population than technical or economical arguments .

Also agree, it is already effectively means tested by being taxable. I was just pondering what options a government might have if none could muster the political capital to end the triple lock - none of the options are ideal.

Albermarle

Although from what I have seen ( and may have missed some of it) the furore from changing the triple lock to a 2.5 lock seems more muted than I expected, so it might turn out to be quite a clever move.

I'd imagine this is due to being 'algorithmed' - what I mean is we are shown things online that an algorithm thinks will interest or engages us. You are likely shown analytic perspectives, level-headed views and evaluations of the proposal which might give the impression that no-one is moaning about it. Someone who thinks Labour 'hates pensioners' and is 'declaring war on them' and engages with that content, will be fed nothing else by the algorithm, which might give the impression that everyone is moaning about it.

I don't know what the general consensus is but I've seen a lot of Andy Burnhams posts after announcing it with the top comments usually being thinly veiled threats about ballot boxes and general elections. If I look up polls since the announcement (on 29th September) you can see a slight decline in labour popularity and a massive surge in conversative popularity coinciding with the announcement (this started before the inheritance tax proposal). It was only a few weeks ago so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

jem16

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82176900#Comment_82176900

In Scotland you can only get free care at home once you have been assessed as needing it by the local authority. Of course what can be provided by the local authority and what the person needs can be very different in practice. Local authority budgets are still stretched and they cannot provide enough staff to cover the needs of the elderly. Often it’s a case of being put to bed at 6pm and nobody returning until 12 or even 14 hours later to help you get out of bed, washed and dressed.

I had to fight even to get Dad 3 even 3 half hour care slots a day and it simply wasn’t enough for his needs. We still had a private carer who we had to pay for who came in 2 hours a day and did some cleaning, making his main meal and providing company. None of that was covered in the free personal care.

Linton

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82176919#Comment_82176919

Because over the very long term it was considered that pensioners as a whole need to be able to be full active members of society. Since the 2nd world war expectations and wealth and hence wages have increased from what was for many little more than bare survival to a level of luxury unimaginable 80 years ago.

The 2.5% was partly political expediency since a close to zero increase in pensions upsets the voters. But also by the 1990s/2000s historic low increases in pension had left the bulk of pensioners who depended on SP for all their income with a significantly lower standard of living than the rest of the population. The 2.5% lower limit steadily increased pensioner relative income without greatly disrupting the economy.

Whether it should continue is open for argument but whether the general public are prepared to accept its removal assuming they understand that it disadvantages future pensioners more than current ones remains to be seen.

Silvertabby

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82176900#Comment_82176900

Yes, but still limited to two or three pop ins per day. Which won't be enough for someone who needs 24/7 nursing care, or a dementia sufferer who can't be left alone for their own safety.

michaels

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82177014#Comment_82177014

Saved me writing exactly that.

On the other hand the pensioners falling behind situation was predicated on average real incomes growing, and who knows if we will ever go back to that form of the good old days.…

Probably worth thinking about, our retirement might last 40 years and start with a fixed in real terms gross household income of 50% above the median. If the median were to grow at 2% pa in real terms then after 40 years that 50% more than median would be only 68% of median. This is the order of magnitude impact that not allowing pensions to keep up with incomes could result in.

Aretnap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82176919#Comment_82176919

DB pensions DO increase in line with earnings over the long term - just for cohorts rather than for individuals. People retire on a percentage of their salary (final or career average) and salaries increase faster than inflation, on average, so people retiring today retire on larger DB pensions than people retiring a couple of decades ago.

(OK public sector salaries have generally fallen in real terms over the last decade and a half so that statement may not hold true over all time periods, but over the very long term it remains true.)

On the broader point, the link to earnings is important because society's expectations of what is a reasonable standard of living change as general standards of living improve. A standard of living which might have been considered acceptable in the 1970s (no internet connection, ice on your windows every morning, a rustbucket car which you had to spend every weekend repairing just to keep it on the road, all the other things that idiots on Facebook will tell you were great and character building) would be considered impoverished today - and if the state pension had been linked to inflation rather than earnings all that time, that's all it would buy.

Albermarle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82176972#Comment_82176972

I'd imagine this is due to being 'algorithmed' - what I mean is we are shown things online that an algorithm thinks will interest or engages us. You are likely shown analytic perspectives, level-headed views and evaluations of the proposal which might give the impression that no-one is moaning about it.

Could be - however I do look at the MSN page that opens if you open a new tab in the Edge browser, and often open pages that you could not call having rational, analytical perspectives - such as opinion pieces in the Daily Express. The 'freezing, starving OAP' stories just do not seem as quite full on as I would expect after the potential tweaking of the TripleLock.