It's a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility taking account of workers on furlough pay going back to work on full pay.
Triple-lock on pensions will stay. Pensions will increase when earnings have decreased
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
It's a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility taking account of workers on furlough pay going back to work on full pay.
That's not what's being said. For much of this year millions of people were getting only 80% (up to £2500 p/m) of their wage. This has affected the average earnings for this year. Next year this will not be the case as people should in theory be back up to 100% of their wage as the furlough system will no longer exist (probably).
I think it's possible, although means testing would need to be set at such a level as not to dissuade ordinary working people from saving for a pension in the first place or they just won't bother. The other way would be not to means test but to increase taxes on everyone (including pensioners) to pay for it.
If only that was the situation we would be fine. The reality is that many pensioners are receiving much more out of the pot* than they ever paid in and this is being funded by the population that are still working (and at the same time seeing their own retirement age increase and house prices become ever more unaffordable). Also, who do you think is also paying for the pensions/benefits of those spongers to which you refer?
*When it comes to the state pension there isn't really a "pot" in the sense of a normal pension fund, so take this as an analogy/simplification.
Another boomer benefit, carpet bagging building societies
Easy money for people of a certain age.
As if
Trouble with some people today, they think they are entitled to every think.
Or "why should I give up things just like my mom and dad did"
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
As if
Trouble with some people today, they think they are entitled to every think.
Or "why should I give up things just like my mom and dad did"
Almost like pensioners thinking they are entitled to a triple lock pension.
Almost like pensioners thinking they are entitled to a triple lock pension.
I think that if you asked them about triple lock.
They would think you're selling a lock for there door
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,673
It’s not a real rise. It’s a statistical anomaly caused by the effects of COVID and furlough scheme. Just like Trump was praising the greatest increase in employment in history..etc, it’s easily possible to have unprecedented growth after a massive fall.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,304
- Location
- 2
In truth how much of this is the Boomers' fault? If the triple lock is pinned to wage increases because the Government interprets the post-recession rebound as wage increases, how is that the Boomers' fault? Any Boomers on PAYE when they worked (what proportion, I wonder) had no influence whatsoever on their own Tax and NI contributions nor how much of that went into the Pension Pot. Housing Policy is handed down by Central Government and implemented via planning through Local Government, and within that framework the construction companies decide what to build based on what is allowed and what is most profitable. Not really the Boomers' fault there, either. Obviously, the older generations always like to moan at the younger ones. I personally can't wait to do exactly that myself. Beyond moaning, I don't see how any of this stuff can be attributed to the Boomers.
How did they have no influence on their tax? They voted in elections on the issue and continue to do so.
Every time you vote for the status quo (even if you abstain, but enjoy the benefits anyway), then the responsibility is on you. Central government is only laying down what the electorate votes for, which includes the implicit support of policies (usually cross-party) not explicitly mentioned on manifestos.
Fact is that parties didn't want to rock the vote by saying something was unsustainable (thanks FPTP), especially against a giant bloc of regular voters who almost always decide the government and the voters who stood to benefit aren't exactly going complain about it. So while successive governments hold some responsibility for this mess, the electorate is the ultimate say in all of it.
The issue is that this particular generation is unusually large in number compared to those that came before or after and have eminence in government policy, no matter how much any further generation agitated, they'd never be able to override the voting power of such a large mostly homogeneous voting bloc. So there's not much point in campaigning (especially when it's too late to do so) for reasonable pension policy, as it's entirely in the hands of the generation that benefits from it. Helps also that the majority of the media (run by plutocrats) is more than happy to exploit the situation for other means.
No point even trying, ergo the apathy of those born after 1965.
Every time you vote for the status quo (even if you abstain, but enjoy the benefits anyway), then the responsibility is on you. Central government is only laying down what the electorate votes for, which includes the implicit support of policies (usually cross-party) not explicitly mentioned on manifestos.
Fact is that parties didn't want to rock the vote by saying something was unsustainable (thanks FPTP), especially against a giant bloc of regular voters who almost always decide the government and the voters who stood to benefit aren't exactly going complain about it. So while successive governments hold some responsibility for this mess, the electorate is the ultimate say in all of it.
The issue is that this particular generation is unusually large in number compared to those that came before or after and have eminence in government policy, no matter how much any further generation agitated, they'd never be able to override the voting power of such a large mostly homogeneous voting bloc. So there's not much point in campaigning (especially when it's too late to do so) for reasonable pension policy, as it's entirely in the hands of the generation that benefits from it. Helps also that the majority of the media (run by plutocrats) is more than happy to exploit the situation for other means.
No point even trying, ergo the apathy of those born after 1965.
Last edited:
No individual boomer (or person) is at fault. The accumulation of several policies and events have contributed to boomers becoming the most privileged population in the country and others having a significantly harder time at having things that they had for granted, and then these people moan about others being lazy or not entitled, while themselves being the most entitled people in this country.
It's like when trust fund babies tell others "stop being poor" and laugh.
If I paid less into the state pension fund that I was taking out, I would 100% back a policy that limits my access to it, especially if I had a private pension that I could survive on.
I would also 100% be happy to have to sell my house to pay for my social care.
I would vote against my own self-interest if that means we get a fairer society, and we get money to the poorest demographics, rather than the richest, even if I'm a member of the richest.
Would you do the same? Pretty clear from your posts here that it's a big no.
There you go.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,304
- Location
- 2
It's an interesting way of looking at it, but not one I can get on board with.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,304
- Location
- 2
Moaning when you are old is a birthright. I'm from Yorkshire, where it is even encouraged when you are younger.
Wow I didn’t think that bojo would be stupid enough to give pensioners a 18% uplift. That going to cost billions and billions. The whole point of increasing the retirement age was that the pension was becoming unaffordable. By rights it should already be at 70 based on average life expectancy.
I have read that in order to pay for this 18% increase, the retirement age for current workers will have to increase by 3 years minimum.
I have read that in order to pay for this 18% increase, the retirement age for current workers will have to increase by 3 years minimum.
The whole thing is an anomaly and they will just take some sort of average figure from either the other two measures or the previous couple of years. Given that like the younger generation most of the pensioners are fairly poor they can have as much as they get out of the gov of the day. Living off the amount they get is a joke