Triple-lock on pensions will stay. Pensions will increase when earnings have decreased

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2019
Posts
341
Location
U.K.
At least two people have posted that the triple lock is the triple lock and if that means its 18% next year then tough. They have said they would feel robbed it it was pulled back to a sensible 2.5% as a one off.

Honestly, I haven't seen any such statement, but to be fair I'm not going to trawl through 14 pages of tripe looking for it - so be my guest and present the quotes and I will be happy to berate them, but somehow I suspect that is not what they said or meant. Speak to some actual pensioners, I doubt you will find any expecting 18% or indeed anything much at all. Most are more concerned with getting through the next 6 months without you youngsters killing them off or stealing their bog roll tbh.

the fact is currently by law the triple lock will give an 18% increase unless somebody does something and changes the law or finds another clever way to cheat the calcs
Once again with these rash statements, it is not law that there will be an 18% increase.

To be clear the triple lock is defined as:

Greatest of the following three:

Average earnings
Prices, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI)
2.5 per cent


No mention of 18% by law. None. Nada.

The only way it could possibly be 18% is if there was a massive jump in the CPI or if average wages went up by 18%
Thats a massive IF, and entirely dependant on how you calculate average earnings, which the government can do using a considerable amount of discretion.

You are not going to get an 18% pay rise next year, so the average earnings will not rise by 18% in real terms, and they can quite happily exclude any anomaly from covid without much bother.
This was covered about ten pages back, but still everybody is stating 18% as if this is a figure that has been officially announced - which it hasn't.

A lot of you appear to have jumped to a conclusion with absolutely no evidence, purely for the sake of being offended at something.
Sounds very... err.. well, millennial... :p
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
9,431
My rubbish collection is already once every 3 weeks they may as well make it once a month.

I pay like £300 a month in council tax too for the privilege.

If you paying £300 a month that tells us something about you.

You dont qualify for CTB so are not in some kind of poverty that needs this 18%.

You in a fairly decent house as the amount you pay indicates what tax band group you in.

As has been said you stuck in your own bubble and are out of touch with whats going on.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2009
Posts
2,979
I very much doubt that wages are going to go back to normal within a single year.

Many industries have been ruined.

Cinemas, airline industry, hotels, indoor entertainment like comedy clubs, theatres, etc. Nightclubs are ruined.

A lot of independent cafes that relied on offices and footfall.

It would be mental for them to bounce back within a year. It will take many years to go back to the way things were and only if there is a vaccine that works long term.

The high street was already dying this has pretty put another nail in that coffin.

I'd bet good money it's never going to be 18%

Unemployment doesn't affect average earnings. It's about earnings of people in work.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2009
Posts
2,979
No mention of 18% by law. None. Nada.

The only way it could possibly be 18% is if there was a massive jump in the CPI or if average wages went up by 18%
Thats a massive IF, and entirely dependant on how you calculate average earnings, which the government can do using a considerable amount of discretion.

You are not going to get an 18% pay rise next year, so the average earnings will not rise by 18% in real terms, and they can quite happily exclude any anomaly from covid without much bother.
This was covered about ten pages back, but still everybody is stating 18% as if this is a figure that has been officially announced - which it hasn't.

A lot of you appear to have jumped to a conclusion with absolutely no evidence, purely for the sake of being offended at something.
Sounds very... err.. well, millennial... :p

18% is government's own figure:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53082530

You may disagree with the OBR on that, but you can't blame anyone for using that figure as their reference.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,361
If you paying £300 a month that tells us something about you.

You dont qualify for CTB so are not in some kind of poverty that needs this 18%.

You in a fairly decent house as the amount you pay indicates what tax band group you in.

As has been said you stuck in your own bubble and are out of touch with whats going on.

i'm not asking for it. i'm nowhere near pension age. i'm saying it's mental how low state pension is. how can one survive on £7k a year? if pensioners get just that then i'm all for an increase.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
9,431
i'm not asking for it. i'm nowhere near pension age. i'm saying it's mental how low state pension is. how can one survive on £7k a year? if pensioners get just that then i'm all for an increase.

The same way working age people survive on 7k a year. Also I dont think anyone here has said no to an increase, its the amount that is the problem.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,626
Location
Co Durham
i'm not asking for it. i'm nowhere near pension age. i'm saying it's mental how low state pension is. how can one survive on £7k a year? if pensioners get just that then i'm all for an increase.

But who pays for it? I mean the damage is done now as people haven't paid enough in during their working life and past governments have never set it up as ring fenced fund. Its always been a pyramid scheme and relys on the the number of current people paying to tax to be able the fund the retired people's pension. This was all fine 40 years ago when an average pensioner only lived long enough to get two years state pension. Now its 20 years.

Already state pensions costs 12% of what the Government has to spend each year. It realistically should be double for a reasonable living at £14k per annum. That would cost every working person £3,428 per year in extra tax.

Most people couldn't afford that plus you want the current workers to be paying as much money into private pensions now so you don't have to pay them a state pension when they retire. Germany has the right idea, between the employee and the employer you have to pay in 19.5% of your salary each year and if you do that for 45 years you get 51% of your salary as a pension.

Would people in the UK vote in a Government who wanted 19.5% of their wages as a "pension tax"?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
9,431
Would people in the UK vote in a Government who wanted 19.5% of their wages as a "pension tax"?

There is no short term solution as the entire system is broken.

Essentially housing has been allowed to become massively less affordable, which in turn eats up more salary.
Wages even excluding housing costs have not kept up with rises in costs of living.

Fundamentally you are correct that people need to pay in more to pension's and this has to be ring fenced. But to allow that, we need accelerated growth in wages, and the housing market to be rebalanced (more housing at lower cost). I cannot see these changes been made as there is too many people who like the current system, so we will keep seeing band aids been applied, and silly policies like the triple lock as a government has to appease its voting base.

But as far as a basic state pension goes, something given to someone who has made no contributions or not enough contributions, it really should be linked and matched to what a working age person gets for when they too ill to work. The only reason these figures would be different is age discrimination. A pensioner is considered unable to work, so they getting the money for the same reason. By all means give people who have paid the appropriate contributions more (which I think already happens).

I think one reason people are opposed to paying into pensions is that there is no guarantee you will live to pension age and if you do, will you will be alive for a long time, and once you pay into a pension its locked away from you until you are old enough. If those restrictions were removed people would be more open to it, I think this is why people prefer to invest in other ways instead such as in housing or business stock, as then they have control of the money.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,361
But who pays for it? I mean the damage is done now as people haven't paid enough in during their working life and past governments have never set it up as ring fenced fund. Its always been a pyramid scheme and relys on the the number of current people paying to tax to be able the fund the retired people's pension. This was all fine 40 years ago when an average pensioner only lived long enough to get two years state pension. Now its 20 years.

Already state pensions costs 12% of what the Government has to spend each year. It realistically should be double for a reasonable living at £14k per annum. That would cost every working person £3,428 per year in extra tax.

Most people couldn't afford that plus you want the current workers to be paying as much money into private pensions now so you don't have to pay them a state pension when they retire. Germany has the right idea, between the employee and the employer you have to pay in 19.5% of your salary each year and if you do that for 45 years you get 51% of your salary as a pension.

Would people in the UK vote in a Government who wanted 19.5% of their wages as a "pension tax"?

It's a shame it is the way it is. There is no easy solution but £7k a year is a pitiful amount. Most of these pensioners helped build this country to what it is.

Yeah sure some may have expensive homes but others won't. Maybe a means tested increase for state pensions would be the best if both worlds.
 

FMF

FMF

Associate
Joined
8 Jul 2008
Posts
226
Never understood the triple lock, why include a seemingly random 2.5% potential increase and also not have a mechanism to decrease if needed (deflation).

Unfortunately I think means tested is going to be the only solution however property should be excluded in my opinion.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,626
Location
Co Durham
It's a shame it is the way it is. There is no easy solution but £7k a year is a pitiful amount. Most of these pensioners helped build this country to what it is.

Yeah sure some may have expensive homes but others won't. Maybe a means tested increase for state pensions would be the best if both worlds.

It is pitiful but this problem was recognised in the 80s but that government and every government since has refused to do anything about it except, as somebody else said, minor band aids.

By now the retirement ages should be at least 70 and still increasing because of the decisions they refused to make because it would lose votes. Nobody would accept 70 as a retirement age (Germany is 63)

If a progressive government had brought in a ring fenced pension tax in the 80s starting at 1% and regularly increased in every 5 years and now it was 19% like Germany (employee pays 9.5% and employer pays 9.5%) then current pensioners would have much more generous pensions than now. The compulsory employee pension we have now is a start but its still only 8% between the employer and employee, 11% behind Germany

Downside is for their entire working life they would have had less disposable income.

So instead we end up with 2m working life low earning pensioners living in poverty, 2m just above the poverty line but 5m who have a property portfolio, final salary pension etc having a combined annual income way above the average annual wage of those who are still working.

And then that group want the current workers to keep paying more and more of their wages each year to keep their pensions increasing by more than inflation/average earnings and refuse to vote for anybody who tries to take a penny away from them.

For decades now the pensioner group decides who we have as a Government and they follow the money.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Mar 2007
Posts
2,411
Location
Essex
I’ll come back to this since the conversation has turned sensible again .

Greebo has a valid point about pensions and voting - it wins seats for sure if your pro OAP’s

65+ was a 74% turn out
18-24 was a 47% turn out

Last G E - it’s a massive difference .


https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

I
think there is a bigger problem for late born Millennials and most of generation Z than how much their state pension will be - Who will fund their housing costs ?

If so many of them as they say can’t save for a house ( let alone a pension ) as they pay sky high rents to private landlords then who pays their rent in old age ?
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2009
Posts
2,979
I’ll come back to this since the conversation has turned sensible again .

Greebo has a valid point about pensions and voting - it wins seats for sure if your pro OAP’s

65+ was a 74% turn out
18-24 was a 47% turn out

Last G E - it’s a massive difference .


https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

I
think there is a bigger problem for late born Millennials and most of generation Z than how much their state pension will be - Who will fund their housing costs ?

If so many of them as they say can’t save for a house ( let alone a pension ) as they pay sky high rents to private landlords then who pays their rent in old age ?

That's why younger people are worried, they're being milked dry right now, and the social systems that they're paying into right now have no chance of surviving in the long term, when they're going to be beneficiaries. No party addresses the concerns of young people, that's why they're disconnected with politics and don't vote.

I personally have planned for my life assuming there will be no NHS, no social care and no state pension by the time I get to the retirement age. So it's either working until I die, or I need to save several million pounds for a chance of retiring without burdening my children, like Americans do.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Dec 2011
Posts
1,828
Location
Stoke-on-Trent
Theres work place pensions now which everyone should be paying into in my opinion, it would pretty silly not to do this and your employer pays in aswell which is effectively free money.


7k isn't much as mentioned, but by the time you've retired 99% of people would have paid off their mortgage which is the biggest monthly cost for anyone.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
28,680
Location
Cornwall
Theres work place pensions now which everyone should be paying into in my opinion, it would pretty silly not to do this and your employer pays in aswell which is effectively free money.


7k isn't much as mentioned, but by the time you've retired 99% of people would have paid off their mortgage which is the biggest monthly cost for anyone.
But the % of people renting is increasing year on year, as is the average age of the first time buyer.

The people who never manage to get on the housing market are screwed.

The people earning less than average wage throughout their lives are screwed.

When we simply don't have the money to run a social security safety net anymore, maybe it'll be us trying to board the dinghies to get over to Europe.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
9,431
I’ll come back to this since the conversation has turned sensible again .

Greebo has a valid point about pensions and voting - it wins seats for sure if your pro OAP’s

65+ was a 74% turn out
18-24 was a 47% turn out

Last G E - it’s a massive difference .


https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

I
think there is a bigger problem for late born Millennials and most of generation Z than how much their state pension will be - Who will fund their housing costs ?

If so many of them as they say can’t save for a house ( let alone a pension ) as they pay sky high rents to private landlords then who pays their rent in old age ?

Pensioners are eligible for housing benefits, although now days housing benefits dont usually fully cover private rents, as the government decided the gouging was too much and capped the rates. If you have an unpaid mortgage though thats a different problem.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,155
Location
Cambridge, UK
*ding ding* We have another that doesn't understand the facts :rolleyes: Congratulations…

https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/.../lloyds-bank-affordable-cities-2019-final.pdf
mtd3Exx.png


Woops, looks like Oxford, Chichester, Winchester and Truro are all more unaffordable than Greater London. And Bath and Cambridge are tied… Oh and I'm sure ( :rolleyes: ) that the step down to 9.7, 9.6, 9.3 and 9.1 for the remaining cities shown really make it that much easier for people.

EDIT: Oh sorry I see you found a £45k flat in Swansea. I stand corrected. Absolute lols from this end of the stadium, Graham :rolleyes:

So I’ve lived near Cambridge for the last 25 years and it’s always been unaffordable for most people. I earn a good salary but I couldn’t afford to live in Cambridge even now, also I wouldn’t chose to as the house prices are just mental. Most of the places on your list are University towns which means that rents and house prices are high and houses are snapped up for HMOs for student almost instantly.

I now live in a small town 21 miles from Cambridge, when I did have to commute in it took about 40 mins. Now I’m not saying it’s easy for first time buyers but if your hoping to buy a house in Cambridge, good luck as it going to be out of reach for 99% of people.

If you take your money a little further out you can still find 2 or 3 bed house for £130k ish. That should be achieved for a couple on an an average salary. At least it gets them on the housing ladder, if the work hard and do well and their salaries increase they can the move in closer to Cambridge if there job requires.

When I first moved to Cambridge a shared a room in a HMO, it was £499 per month, I used to get paid around £900 I’ll let you do the math ;)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,155
Location
Cambridge, UK
*ding ding* We have another that doesn't understand the facts :rolleyes: Congratulations…

https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/.../lloyds-bank-affordable-cities-2019-final.pdf
mtd3Exx.png


Woops, looks like Oxford, Chichester, Winchester and Truro are all more unaffordable than Greater London. And Bath and Cambridge are tied… Oh and I'm sure ( :rolleyes: ) that the step down to 9.7, 9.6, 9.3 and 9.1 for the remaining cities shown really make it that much easier for people.

EDIT: Oh sorry I see you found a £45k flat in Swansea. I stand corrected. Absolute lols from this end of the stadium, Graham :rolleyes:

Oops pearoast
 
Top