Andy Burnham to scrap Pension Triple Lock

[gagzus 25,725]

 

[gagzus 25,725]

It’s about damn time, Pensions are going up disproportionately to actual working wages in the UK. And people forget a pension is a benefit.

[Skyana Rava 2,859]

Is this good or is this propaganda about shifting money from the working class to the rich?

Edit: I'm legitimately asking. I don't know what triple lock even means

Edited 21 hours ago by Skyana Rava

[gagzus 25,725]

19 minutes ago, Skyana Rava said:

Is this good or is this propaganda about shifting money from the working class to the rich?

Edit: I'm legitimately asking. I don't know what triple lock even means

The triple lock guarantees the State Pension rises each year by whichever is highest of average earnings growth, inflation, or 2.5%. So, for example, if wages rise by 4%, inflation is 2%, and the 2.5% minimum applies, pensions would increase by 4%.

But it doesn’t discriminate, so if your private pension is £50k+ a year, you are still entitled to the State Pension, but you still get the same percentage increase as someone on just the £12.5k average. And working people’s taxes go up to accommodate.
 

Retirement age for the state pension also continuously gets put back for people, for example 16 years ago it was about 60 but now it’s closing into 70. Which means the current generation of pensioners in their 70s will have had 10+ years more pension than someone under the retirement age is. Because people are living longer. Which means by the time I retire, it maybe very well be that I’m only entitled to 5-10 years worth of pension whilst the current wave of pensioners will end up with almost 30 years worth.

For some reason in the UK many people think that the taxes tou pay in your own lifetime equate to a personal pension, they don’t. Taxes working people pay now pay for the currently retired people‘s pensions.

It’s supposed to protect pensioners’ incomes from inflation and ensure they share in rising living standards, but it is controversial because it can increase government spending significantly and means pensioners’ incomes can rise faster than those of working-age people when earnings or inflation are high.

For example, since 2010 almost £16billion has been added to pensions due to the Triple Lock. 

Edited 21 hours ago by gagzus

[nATAH 58,486]

i quite like this man

[Bronco 28,262]

The ****ing mad lad.

If I didnt hate my local Labour MP on a personal level these days I'd be tempted to support them in the next general at this rate.

[Bronco 28,262]

Damn. Starmer truly looks awful after this conference speech 

Publicly owned utilities 😍

Stronger regulation of private utility companies

Council housing instead of benefit cuts 😍

Council powers to take ownership of abandoned property and badly maintained rental property 😍😍

VAT removed entirely from electric bills

Bus ticket cap at £2

New social contract

Commitment to home care as the bedrock of the care system

FREE AT THE POINT OF USE SOCIAL CARE 

Triple lock will be maintained in this parliament (ends Summer 2029). But will be linked to wage growth from April 2030. All savings will be invested into the National Care Service. 

Blames westminster for YP's employment prospects.

Rebuilding the comprehensive system.

45 day work exp placements for under 18s.

Guaranteed in work support for people with additional needs. 

2.5% first time buyer mortgages for young people.

Commitment to the 2 state solution in Israel & Palestine (follows Miliband saying Starmer got it wrong and Mahmood setting out a refugee pathway for Palestinians amongst others).

Gov procurement prioritising british industry.

Using the G20 presidency next year to push for a global agreement on AI regulation. 

Blames the market being anti-UK on british politicians being unserious about the job.

National commission on electoral reform. Open invite to all parties to join. 

Commitment to contesting the 2029 election on a manifesto pledge to change the electoral system.

"Britain stands for something worth saving" - thats the election slogan if I ever saw one.

"The first PM to make Britain work for everyone and everywhere".

Brexit weakened us and took control away from us.  

Thanks immigrants who contribute to the UK. 

"Brexit has done more harm than good"

Pledges to seek consensus on our long term relationship with the EU.

[Economy 53,171]

15 hours ago, gagzus said:

It’s about damn time, Pensions are going up disproportionately to actual working wages in the UK. And people forget a pension is a benefit.

Agreed. Im all for giving the elderly enough benefits to live in dignity and to get a fair return after deducting their whole lives into the system

 

But it also needs to be sustainable. A system that over the long term raises the benefit more than wages and inflation is guaranteed to crush the younger population with pressure in taxes and deductions which isnt fair either

 

I wonder how they did not foresee this problem. Was it enacted during a time of rapid economic and productivity growth where wages and purchasing power was rising steadily and they wanted to make sure retirees also benefited from that? This system could make sense if the world was always growing wealthier per person but it fails if that doesnt consistently hold

 

 

[Bronco 28,262]

15 minutes ago, Economy said:

I wonder how they did not foresee this problem. Was it enacted during a time of rapid economic and productivity growth where wages and purchasing power was rising steadily and they wanted to make sure retirees also benefited from that? This system could make sense if the world was always growing wealthier per person but it fails if that doesnt consistently hold

It was introduced in 2010 after the financial crash.

The UK state pension was woefully low (still the lowest in the G7 at around £12k p/a) and pensioner poverty was sitting around 35% (higher than child and working age adult poverty at the time).

For the majority, there were no private savings (this has obviously increased with successive post 80s age groups).

Pensioners got hit incredibly hard by the crash and the increase in cost of living etc.

So the triple lock was introduced, it was a rush job and was only predicted to cost £50million (which was ludicrous). The purpose was to lift pensioners at the bottom end out of poverty by ensuring that the basic state pension kept pace with the cost of living (inflation - CPI specifically) & avg wage growth.

While at the same time the gov introduced requirements for all workers to be enrolled into a private "workplace" pension scheme with minimum contributions from employers and employees from the age of 21 and up or as soon as they enter full time employment if this is before 21. 

The goal being to better protect low income pensioners without private pensions from economic shocks while also establishing a system to ensure future workers don't retire without lifetime savings from working. 

And then, as is natural, the system turned a temporary measure into an unbreakable electoral blood pact.

[Economy 53,171]

56 minutes ago, Bronco said:

It was introduced in 2010 after the financial crash.

The UK state pension was woefully low (still the lowest in the G7 at around £12k p/a) and pensioner poverty was sitting around 35% (higher than child and working age adult poverty at the time).

For the majority, there were no private savings (this has obviously increased with successive post 80s age groups).

Pensioners got hit incredibly hard by the crash and the increase in cost of living etc.

So the triple lock was introduced, it was a rush job and was only predicted to cost £50million (which was ludicrous). The purpose was to lift pensioners at the bottom end out of poverty by ensuring that the basic state pension kept pace with the cost of living (inflation - CPI specifically) & avg wage growth.

While at the same time the gov introduced requirements for all workers to be enrolled into a private "workplace" pension scheme with minimum contributions from employers and employees from the age of 21 and up or as soon as they enter full time employment if this is before 21. 

The goal being to better protect low income pensioners without private pensions from economic shocks while also establishing a system to ensure future workers don't retire without lifetime savings from working. 

And then, as is natural, the system turned a temporary measure into an unbreakable electoral blood pact.

Seems to me like if the issue is poverty and benefits seemed too low, a one time bump djustment would have made more sense then making a permanent systen like this

[Bronco 28,262]

6 minutes ago, Economy said:

Seems to me like if the issue is poverty and benefits seemed too low, a one time bump djustment would have made more sense then making a permanent systen like this

Why would you do something sensible as a politician?

Personally, id have it match minimum wage and turn it into a means tested benefit.

A 3rd of british pensioners are milionaires through the value of savings & private pensions. It is ridiculous they get a state pension while 16% of pensioners are still in poverty.

[Sarah H 4,477]

He said he'd "adjust" it from 2030. That's a long way off yet. 

But from what I've seen of him so far, I would vote for him. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sarah H