Triple Lock

[Bper]

With the triple lock on pensions under threat do you think this should be allowed.With the cost of living continually rising what do you think would be fair as an annual pay rise for pensioners.?👍

[Basil-BarryC]

14 hours ago, Bper said:

With the triple lock on pensions under threat do you think this should be allowed.With the cost of living continually rising what do you think would be fair as an annual pay rise for pensioners.?👍

It’s the formula the Conservative/Lib Dem alliance agreed with to calculate annual pensions increases, now I bet they will try to juggle the figures used to save money 😡

[AndyN01]

I think it would be a good idea for MP's to live on the basic amount that pensioner's receive for, say, 6 months and see how how they get on. No other benefits, no bonuses, no dividends from shares etc. just the basic pension.

I don't subscribe to the view that the tax/NI that the pensioners paid in isn't for their retirement. If I put (compulsory) money into something then surely I get something out?

And yes, I've heard all the discussions about it's this generation of workers taxes etc. that pay the retirement bill for now but the information on numbers etc. is very well known so unless there's gross mismanagement of the money it simply should be there, ready and waiting.

Andy.

[Haliotis]

16 hours ago, Bper said:

With the triple lock on pensions under threat do you think this should be allowed.With the cost of living continually rising what do you think would be fair as an annual pay rise for pensioners.?👍

The Triple Lock is a fair way of setting pension increases. Working people have paid into the funds for all their working lives.  It isn’t their fault that successive governments have failed to ring-fence N.I. Income, and Chancellors have conveniently integrated these payments into the general revenue.  Why would anyone even think of attacking the Triple Lock?  Are not pensioners entitled to a decent pension (which is one of the poorest already in the developed world), instead of being a group who come under financial scrutiny immediately costs are considered?

I also have a private company pension, for which I contributed and upon which I pay income tax.  Nobody seems to object to the gold-plated, inflation-proof pensions for the Public Sector - protected in law - so what is different about them?

UK governments waste money hand-over-fist.  They still pay aid to China, even though that country’s economy is better than our own.  They hand out cash to the illegals, provide NHS care for them, and provide luxury accommodation for them; at the same time turning a blind eye to our own homeless, some of whom are ex-servicemen.

The problem in the UK - anyone who honestly forges a decent living for themselves is seen as some kind of pariah, even when, at pension age, they are still paying income tax and contributing to the public purse.

[FROSTYBALLS]

9 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

I also have a private company pension, for which I contributed and upon which I pay income tax.  Nobody seems to object to the gold-plated, inflation-proof pensions for the Public Sector - protected in law - so what is different about them?

Much in the same way as you paid into a private company pension, public sector workers also paid into their pension scheme, and also pay income tax on their pensions. Some bodies - e.g. Civil Service - offered no choice about paying into their scheme.

Incidentally the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (Central government) is also funded from general taxation, because successive governments dating back to pre-war have never set it up as a 'proper' pension scheme such as some Local Authority and company schemes. 

Also for several previous years, annual salary increases in the Civil Service have been reduced purely due to the decent pensions on offer should one actually reach retirement age.

Going back to the topic subject, yes, the triple lock should continue, as eventually it will benefit today's taxpayers should they reach their retirement age and become eligible for their pension.

[Haliotis]

You make a good point, Mike.  Many young people today complain about the amount some pensioners receive, compared to their own incomes.  What they don’t seem to realise is, if the state pension is allowed to be starved now, then when they [the young ones] reach pension age, their state pensions will also be lower from the knock-on effect over the years.

Although my wife is a blue Badge holder, apart from the winter fuel allowance and bus passes, we do not get, nor are entitled to, any social benefits.  We prefer to be self-sufficient and wouldn’t have it any other way, and we do not begrudge benefits being paid to those who genuinely deserve them.

[Big_D]

5 hours ago, Haliotis said:

benefits being paid to those who genuinely deserve them.

And there you have hit the nail on the head. So many benefits are being claimed by those who do not need, or deserve, them

[Cyker]

TBH I'd be surprised if the state pension still exists when I get to retirement age (Assuming I do; I'll need to be over a hundred by then if they keep pushing it up!!  ) - They didn't force all employers to set up private pensions for their staff for no reason...

Then again maybe UBI will be a thing by then...

[Bper]

I like many others never gave much thought towards a pension as it seemed many years in the future and very far away when you are younger. The problem is it creeps up before you know it. 

This is the second month into my pension and I paid in to the system for over 35 years, but I never realised how difficult it could be to live on a state pension until you understand what it actually buys in the real world.

fortunately I didn't have to rely on the state pension but I totally understand those that have to rely on just this.