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

Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,626
Location
Co Durham
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

you think it’s okay to give pensions an 18% increase which will cost £17bn per year, more than what covid has cost?
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2007
Posts
2,989
Location
Bristol, UK
so is the problem Covid or the 17bn because clearly 17bn can be plucked out the air if it had to be? I think if you put is as do you think its ok for people to live on £1xx per week as their income it also sounds bad. Not saying finding the money would be a great thing but you got to pick and chose who to support and if a fairer world is the end goal then theres plenty of OAP's out there living on the poverty line regardless if they get 1% or 5% pension increase
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2009
Posts
2,979
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.

It will cost an extra £750 per working person per year, forever.

Sooner or later, this will be added to the taxes that people pay. Whether it will be a tax increase, or increasing the retirement age, or a tax on private pensions, or reduction of other benefits, this money will come from somewhere else in the budget.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Feb 2004
Posts
878
It will cost an extra £750 per working person per year, forever.

Sooner or later, this will be added to the taxes that young people pay. Whether it will be a tax increase, or increasing the retirement age, or a tax on private pensions, or reduction of other benefits, this money will come from somewhere else in the budget.

Fixed that for you.

Plainly obvious that boomer pensioners are not going to pay for themselves, they expect everyone else to pay for them instead. - It's an entire generation of selfish arrogant ******** who live and breathe the "FYIGM" attitude.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Posts
24,578
WTF relevance does that have to the massive increase in pensions that is going to happen this year, vs everyone else's income?

Talk about "whataboutery" to try and distract from the reality that pensioners are YET AGAIN getting a better deal than ANYONE ELSE in the country.

It's relevant to Greebo's post about the cost compared to COVID.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Feb 2004
Posts
878
It's relevant to Greebo's post about the cost compared to COVID.


Ahh fair enough.. in which case I refer the same comments to @Greebo Also..

WTF does the incurred costs of a global pandemic have to do with the fact pensioners are going to get a massive increase in income, while everyone else gets ****** ?

Also... @Surveyor What does it matter HOW MUCH covid costs?

Simple facts.. Pensioners are getting a huge income increase, while everyone else in the country has to "suck it up" and gets less. It doesn't matter WHAT the cause was.. it's ****ing disgusting and should be stopped.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2019
Posts
341
Location
U.K.
ok boomer, but I shall not rest until all boomers are gone :D

You obviously didn't read my reply to you in the last thread - I'm not a boomer... :rolleyes:

The richest population in the country don't need an income increase when everyone else's income has been significantly reduced. Nothing personal. Just making sure these people understand that they share a society with the rest of us, and stuff that happens in real life should affect them too. But they're a protected species it seems.

The richest population? You mean London and the southwest?
The fatcats with their massive private pensions?

Or are you trying to imply the people that have worked longer have earnt more? Because, err, thats pretty much the point of working - you acquire wealth as you grow older.

FYI the average wealth increases with age up until state pension age after which it starts reducing. Might want to actually check the statistics before you invent your facts.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?u...hingreatbritain/april2016tomarch2018/86609f63


Yeah, because they paid next to nothing in taxes (comparatively to other modern countries), so they never built up the state pension trust fund. Other countries (like the US or Germany) were wiser, increased taxes in 1970s or 1980s because they anticipated what's going to happen, and they built up a trust fund. We didn't.

Those pesky boomers, only doing as they were told and paying the tax that was deducted automatically from their salary - how irresponsible. :D

You seem to be confused with how the state pension operates.

The contributions collected fund the immediate outgoings, they aren't collected and invested until you retire.
Those currently working pay for those currently retired. That has always been the case.

Cost of living varies widely in different countries so you are not comparing apples to apples either.

Millennials had to pay for their own education. The people who benefited from state-funded education and training was those whose income is increasing despite everyone else's decreasing.

As a Millennial you have benefited from numerous state funded or assisted schemes which are not available for the current cohorts.
You didn't get a student grant, but the loan system had infinitely better terms than it does now.

By rights Gen Z should also be complaining about millennials and all the opportunities and help you had.

State pension costs about £100b a year. Increasing it by 18% next year (triple lock) means an extra £18b that needs to come from taxes on working people. It's not insignificant. That £18b can be spent on programs that benefit young families with children for example, who are the population that were negative affected more than anyone else. But no, boomers can't survive without their damn income going up even if the country is burning in flames.

Abandoning the triple lock saves 4bn per annum.

HS2 has cost 106bn
Tax dodging costs 70bn per year
The Furlough scheme costs 14bn per month.

4bn is an insignificant amount by comparison, and actually has a positive effect for the elderly some of which live in abject poverty with no other options.

Sidenote - a lot of millennials have just had a massive furlough handout for being sat on their arse for months, which Gen Z will probably still be paying for.

Not wanting the richest demographics in the country to be even richer = mass Euthanasia :D
ok boomer

Old aged pensioners are hardly the richest demographic, and the increase is hardly going to make them rich.
It's called social responsibility, but responsibility seems to be a big word for far too many people today. Recent global events have highlighted that.

I just like to bitch and moan, sorry :cool:

If it was entertaining, interesting or accurate it wouldn't be so bad.
But it isn't, just silly. :)
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2019
Posts
341
Location
U.K.
Such a middle class reply, there are plenty of millennials that have never had a "bank of mum and dad", whose parents are still working and unable to help with childcare, who live too far away from each other to benefit from a family support network (because who is entitled to live near their family and have a decent job, right?) and can't afford to pay into a decent private pension.

Ensuring that every pensioner isn't living in poverty is something we should aspire to, but it shouldn't be based on a blunt instrument like the triple lock state pensions unless we do something like abolish National Insurance and increase income tax accordingly for everyone (including pensioners).

I've been accused of many things in my life, but "middle classed" is a first! :p
I've grafted my entire life, never been out of work, and scrimped until I was debt free.
The last holiday I took was in 2008, and that was only because I combined it with a business trip.

But this thread is about perpetuating stereotypes rather than actually worrying about facts, so crack on. :D

A lot of people on the breadline rely on their extended family for childcare while they hold down several jobs - Some of those pensioners will still be working part time and making sacrifices to their own wellbeing in order to subsidise their offspring and look after the grandkids.

None of that sounds very middle class to me, and it will be those pensioners that are relying on the state pension and the triple lock the most.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2019
Posts
341
Location
U.K.
Wage growth after Covid next year. It's government's own estimate.

Wages go down up to 20% this year -> state pension increases by 2.5%

Wages go up 18% next year, as estimated -> state pension increases by 18%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53082530

That's an extra £20 billion that needs to be funded from taxes. That's £750 per working person per year, to give to pensioners, at the time that their earnings have been reduced.

The state pension has increased by a total of 2.5% over national average earnings from 20% in 2010 when it was introduced to 22.5% in 2020.

It will not increase by 18%, wages will most likely be averaged over two years to even out the covid anomalies.
Nobody with an ounce of common sense or financial knowledge truly expects there to be an 18% rise in state pension.

I would say stop reading the incendiary headlines in the daily mail, but that's boomers, what's the millennial equivalent? Probably the Guardian.
The real world doesn't work like that.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2019
Posts
341
Location
U.K.
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.

Don't worry, it will never happen. When you get older you will change your mind, that I guarantee.
There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money won't cure.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,922
You obviously didn't read my reply to you in the last thread - I'm not a boomer... :rolleyes:



The richest population? You mean London and the southwest?
The fatcats with their massive private pensions?

Or are you trying to imply the people that have worked longer have earnt more? Because, err, thats pretty much the point of working - you acquire wealth as you grow older.

FYI the average wealth increases with age up until state pension age after which it starts reducing. Might want to actually check the statistics before you invent your facts.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?u...hingreatbritain/april2016tomarch2018/86609f63




Those pesky boomers, only doing as they were told and paying the tax that was deducted automatically from their salary - how irresponsible. :D

You seem to be confused with how the state pension operates.

The contributions collected fund the immediate outgoings, they aren't collected and invested until you retire.
Those currently working pay for those currently retired. That has always been the case.

Cost of living varies widely in different countries so you are not comparing apples to apples either.



As a Millennial you have benefited from numerous state funded or assisted schemes which are not available for the current cohorts.
You didn't get a student grant, but the loan system had infinitely better terms than it does now.

By rights Gen Z should also be complaining about millennials and all the opportunities and help you had.



Abandoning the triple lock saves 4bn per annum.

HS2 has cost 106bn
Tax dodging costs 70bn per year
The Furlough scheme costs 14bn per month.

4bn is an insignificant amount by comparison, and actually has a positive effect for the elderly some of which live in abject poverty with no other options.

Sidenote - a lot of millennials have just had a massive furlough handout for being sat on their arse for months, which Gen Z will probably still be paying for.



Old aged pensioners are hardly the richest demographic, and the increase is hardly going to make them rich.
It's called social responsibility, but responsibility seems to be a big word for far too many people today. Recent global events have highlighted that.



If it was entertaining, interesting or accurate it wouldn't be so bad.
But it isn't, just silly. :)

I've been accused of many things in my life, but "middle classed" is a first! :p
I've grafted my entire life, never been out of work, and scrimped until I was debt free.
The last holiday I took was in 2008, and that was only because I combined it with a business trip.

But this thread is about perpetuating stereotypes rather than actually worrying about facts, so crack on. :D

A lot of people on the breadline rely on their extended family for childcare while they hold down several jobs - Some of those pensioners will still be working part time and making sacrifices to their own wellbeing in order to subsidise their offspring and look after the grandkids.

None of that sounds very middle class to me, and it will be those pensioners that are relying on the state pension and the triple lock the most.

The state pension has increased by a total of 2.5% over national average earnings from 20% in 2010 when it was introduced to 22.5% in 2020.

It will not increase by 18%, wages will most likely be averaged over two years to even out the covid anomalies.
Nobody with an ounce of common sense or financial knowledge truly expects there to be an 18% rise in state pension.

I would say stop reading the incendiary headlines in the daily mail, but that's boomers, what's the millennial equivalent? Probably the Guardian.
The real world doesn't work like that.

Don't worry, it will never happen. When you get older you will change your mind, that I guarantee.
There is nothing in socialism that a little age or a little money won't cure.

4 separate quote posts in a row? You are Plas's second account.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Posts
24,041
Location
Solihull-Florida
Ahh fair enough.. in which case I refer the same comments to @Greebo Also..

WTF does the incurred costs of a global pandemic have to do with the fact pensioners are going to get a massive increase in income, while everyone else gets ****** ?

Also... @Surveyor What does it matter HOW MUCH covid costs?

Simple facts.. Pensioners are getting a huge income increase, while everyone else in the country has to "suck it up" and gets less. It doesn't matter WHAT the cause was.. it's ****ing disgusting and should be stopped.


So. If you was going to get a big pay rise.
You would turn it down because not everyone that works with you will get it?
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,626
Location
Co Durham
Abandoning the triple lock saves 4bn per annum.

HS2 has cost 106bn
Tax dodging costs 70bn per year
The Furlough scheme costs 14bn per month.

4bn is an insignificant amount by comparison, and actually has a positive effect for the elderly some of which live in abject poverty with no other options.

:)

The point about temporarily abandoning the triple lock is that with covid and furlough that means pensioners will get an 18% increase this year and obvisouly since pensions never go down, that increase will remain in place for years.

Thats an extra £17bn cost next year alone for state pensions. Then another £17bn the following year plus whatever the triple lock adds onto it etc.

In fact by deciding to keep the triple lock in place that will mean state pension increases will cost more than HS2 over the time HS2 takes to build.

Its economic suicide personally.

I dont agree with HS2 and especially post covid it should be shelved and the £106bn saved but then giving that £106bn to pensioners over the next 6 years while the rest of us all face massive tax increases and massive cuts to public services becuase of covid, just seems wrong.

Its bad enough to be facing a decade or more of higher taxes without every working person in the UK having to pay £725 more per annum in taxes just to give the pensioners an 18% increase.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
42,626
Location
Co Durham
The state pension has increased by a total of 2.5% over national average earnings from 20% in 2010 when it was introduced to 22.5% in 2020.

It will not increase by 18%, wages will most likely be averaged over two years to even out the covid anomalies.
Nobody with an ounce of common sense or financial knowledge truly expects there to be an 18% rise in state pension.

I would say stop reading the incendiary headlines in the daily mail, but that's boomers, what's the millennial equivalent? Probably the Guardian.
The real world doesn't work like that.

No Rishi wanted to drop the triple lock next year and make it a double lock to take account of the one off special circumstances of Covid. This has been overuled by Boris now and the triple lock stays for next year.

Either the triple lock stays and they get 18% rise or it is changed and they dont,. The article linked to says the decision ahs been made to not change the the triple lock.

I agree with you that treating next year as exceptional should be done but thats the whole point. Rishi wanted to do something which would be breaking a Tory manifesto pledge and he has been overuled.
 
Last edited:
Top