More deprivations perhaps 😏

PoliticsNerd

Doodledog

Indeed. But the people drawing it now are (largely) those who, in their turn paid towards the pensions of others, many of whom retired at 60.

They are the ones who matter, along with those who are paying in whilst waiting their turn.

That's fine if that's what your opinion is Doodledog.

Thank you for allowing me my opinion. I didn't realise it was in your gift.😂

Ilovecheese

It looks like it will be ill and disabled people who will suffer deprivation next, as this Government wants to continue the Conservatives plans to reduce the benefits bill. They have just had a bit of a knock back in the High Court but will no doubt charge ahead, reducing a number of disabled people to "abject poverty".

They are trying to take a bit from everyone (to fill that alleged 'black-hole').

Unfortunately, those with the deepest pockets - and the power that goes with it - aren't having any of it.

So yes, it's back to the same old same old.

And unless we change to the Nordic economic model (and that's so unlikely that it's hardly worth talking about), so it will continue.

Doodledog

Indeed. But the people drawing it now are (largely) those who, in their turn paid towards the pensions of others, many of whom retired at 60.

They are the ones who matter, along with those who are paying in whilst waiting their turn.

That's fine if that's what your opinion is Doodledog.

It looks like it will be ill and disabled people who will suffer deprivation next, as this Government wants to continue the Conservatives plans to reduce the benefits bill. They have just had a bit of a knock back in the High Court but will no doubt charge ahead, reducing a number of disabled people to "abject poverty".

Mrs Thatcher broke the link between pensions and wages didn't she? Which is why our pensions need to catch up a bit now. If pensions had risen in line with wages in the past they could continue to do so now. As it is they lagging so far behind wages that they need a top up to provide a decent standard.

It's one of those dilemmas that I see and understand but there have no easy answer to.

People relying mostly on State Pension undoubtedly need their income to keep pace with inflation: those with substantial other resources do not. But how it's calibrated, where lines get drawn, how it's administered, costs of administration, I admit I cant get my head around!

Doodledog Mon 20-Jan-25 13:00:44

Excellent post Dd.

Freya5

M0nica

I would be quite happy to see the pension rise tied to the rises in wages only.

I felt very uncomfortable when wages were stagnant or fslling to get bigger rises because of inflation. I fht erst of the population suffer, why shouldn't we?

Well good for you. Younger people can choose to live on Universal credit, or they can choose to work proper hours, and get paid a full time wage. The cry of "we'll lose our benenefits" is the reason most of these should be working full time. Benefit are a stop gap, they shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, by working as little hours they can.
On the other hand, many pensioners can perhaps only work a few hours. Many others can't work at all. You must be one of the richer ones.

Freya5. You should read my posts between the one you quote and here. In them I made it absolutely clear that I believed that any change in the way pensions are calculated should go with changes in pension Credit, so that no one on a small oension was disadvantaged by the change. Pension credit could be tied tothe triple lock, for examole.

But like it or not the number of people on Pension is increasing and the number of those in work paying for it is falling. Something has to give and if what gives is the state pension better off pensioners like me receive, I cannot see the problem.

Indeed. But the people drawing it now are (largely) those who, in their turn paid towards the pensions of others, many of whom retired at 60.

They are the ones who matter, along with those who are paying in whilst waiting their turn.

on the understanding that they would get the same in their turn. (Doodledog)

When the state pension started there was stringent ‘means testing’ and a ‘character test’ the maximum you would get would be equivalent to £30.

State pension have always changed.

M0nica

I would be quite happy to see the pension rise tied to the rises in wages only.

I felt very uncomfortable when wages were stagnant or fslling to get bigger rises because of inflation. I fht erst of the population suffer, why shouldn't we?

Well good for you. Younger people can choose to live on Universal credit, or they can choose to work proper hours, and get paid a full time wage. The cry of "we'll lose our benenefits" is the reason most of these should be working full time. Benefit are a stop gap, they shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, by working as little hours they can.
On the other hand, many pensioners can perhaps only work a few hours. Many others can't work at all. You must be one of the richer ones.

Why would Reeves need to look at phasing out the triple lock? (FlitterMouse)

The next generation of tax payers always pays for the older generations pension. It's a Pay-As-You-Go scheme. It seems wrong that when we paid (from our taxes) more of us were paying for fewer pensioners. Now fewer taxpayers are paying for more pensions and at a rate that can be above their own earnings increase. (From my post 20-Jan-25 12:08:15.)

Because our pensions have to be "sold" to current an future generations more than the idea of them has to be sold to pensioners.

Something needs to be done to make things more equitable. The current system clearly isn't working.

I suspect that AI will make ideas of working for money redundant up to a point anyway, so this is probably as good a time as any to rethink.

As things stand though, my fears are that conditions are ripe for a resurgence of right wing dictatorship - maybe not in the forms we've seen in the past, but probably equally terrifying.

There may not be a constitution or written contract in the UK, but the constant 'there is no pot' mantra is insulting on a number of levels.

For one thing, we know! When people say 'I paid in', I doubt many really see it as going into a pig with their name on it. They mean that they followed the rules and sacrificed a percentage of their salary to pay the pensions of the generation before them, on the understanding that they would get the same in their turn. That is not news, however much it is so often presented as such by supporters of scrapping or means-testing pensions.

For another, those who have paid into occupational pensions have done so in order to increase their standard of living in retirement. To be told that this should lift them out of getting a return on their state pension contributions is a betrayal, and to add that instead of pensions going to those who have worked for them they should instead go to those who haven't paid (or haven't paid enough) and that those people should also get other things paid for is asking for trouble. Coupled with high housing costs, low wages and inflation, this is likely to increase votes for someone promising to listen to the disaffected. We can see this happening already.

We all know that life's not fair, but there has to be some semblance of fairness, or at least a belief that a desire for fairness underpins our society. Without that, people have no stake in being law abiding or in 'playing the game'. As regards pensions, there is no point in comparing now with when it was brought in. Society is different. More women work, and we retire later. More people don't work because of sickness. Jobs are different. Life expectancy has risen, even if it is falling again after years of Austerity.

That doesn't mean that we should prevent people from saving for older age by means-testing or scrapping pensions. It might mean looking again at how money is circulated, and finding a way that doesn't put so much of the burden on those who work, particularly as AI is going to throw a lot of current certainties in the air anyway.

Personally, I would like to see a social contract, with rights and responsibilities for everyone. There should not be a feudal-style system which forces some to work to pay for others who are capable but choose not to. If everyone knows that they have to give as well as take (and who knows what form that will take in future - I'm not suggesting communal farms or anything of that sort ) we may regain the sense of cohesiveness that has allowed democracy and law by consensus for so long.

mum2three

They are penalising us for being old. It wouldn't be so bad if the money saved was used for the benefit of our country, but they are giving so much away to other countries. Is this what they mean when they talk about 'an equal society'?

It’s a fraction in % terms that we give in Foreign Aid, just like many other countries do.

EVERYONE deserves a decent chance and opportunities not just those with white faces!

It’s the job of government to manage the economy to keep inflation at a reasonable level.

Well, actually it isn't. That is the job of the nominally independent Bank of England.

If it really were understood by the government to be the job of the government our Chancellor would be telling the BoE to lower the interest rates which have contributed seriously to inflation in the UK and kept it high for much longer than it should have been.

A bit like my feeling on unions and nationalisation. They seem anachronistic and we may have to use more 21st century methods.

Running an economy on the principle that all money put into it by the state is sucked upwards into the hands of the wealthy seems incredibly anachronistic to me, seeing as that has been happening for hundreds of years.

Perhaps some 21st century methods might be beneficial in that regard, too. Or even the 20th century method devised by Lord Keynes which brought the UK closer to a more equable distribution of resources than had ever been the case before, or since...

Why would Reeves need to look at phasing out the triple lock?

There is a wealth of funds in the National Insurance Fund (net of the NHS allocation) which stood at 86 billion at 31 March 2024. That is 65 billion in excess funds over and above the contingency required to meet extraordinary events

The excess is projected to reduce to 75 billion by 31 March 2025 (Hunt’s 10 billion pre-election NIC cut) but thereafter GAD say that contribution income is estimated to exceed benefit expenditure in every subsequent year of the projection period, resulting in an increasing fund balance.

See my post on page one which links to the relevant government publications.

It’s the job of government to manage the economy to keep inflation at a reasonable level. If it does so then pension rises will remain at reasonable levels. If it doesn’t then people on fixed incomes will need help to keep up with rising costs. Else we just go down the residual welfare route which is costly to administer and divisive.

Doodledog

It would be yet another way to discourage people from bothering with a works pension and relying on the state one instead. If income from all sources was taken into account it would cost a fortune to administrate, and in any case the fabled millionaire pensioners probably don't use public transport much anyway.

You and your employer must pay a percentage of your earnings into your workplace pension scheme. We could (if we chose) have a means tested pension. They would need to ramp up the Workplace Pension but it works elsewhere so no reason why it couldn't be done.

I was always in favour of universal benefits but I'm beginning to wonder if a) they do what the set out to do and b) we can afford them. A bit like my feeling on unions and nationalisation. They seem anachronistic and we may have to use more 21st century methods.

I'm not sure what Rachel Reeves has said but this is from the Guardian.

Kemi Badenoch has been urged by a former Conservative pensions minister to clarify “what on earth she means” by suggesting the pensions triple lock could be means-tested, amid alarm within the party that she will lose support among older people.

I do think RR will have to look at phasing out the triple lock. I would suggest she marks it for what would cause her to withdraw the inflation and 2.5% prongs and use only average earning.

My choice would be when Pension Credit reaches a Minimum Income Standard. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests it is about £5.5 thousand short of their figure (Sept 2024) which usually comes in quite close to the government's own figure. Pension Credit comes with extra befits in kind so an average value would bring down the £5.5 thousand.

While triple lock existed all stare pension would rise with it and more people on Basic Pension (and some on the New SP) would tip into Pension Credit.

The next generation of tax payers always pays for the older generations pension. It's a Pay-As-You-Go scheme. It seems wrong that when we paid (from our taxes) more of us were paying for fewer pensioners. Now fewer taxpayers are paying for more pensions and at a rate that can be above their own earnings increase.

kittylester

^More sensible for who?
It’s how older pensioners like my Mum get about so much to browse shops and meet friends.It’s designed for just that reason, for older people to stay mobile and out of their houses.^

A nominal £10 or £20 to save such a lot in bus fares seems reasonable.

The cost of administering a £10 annual cost would probably be more than the fee would generate in income.

Like others I think this was a Tory/ Badenoch thing.
She has been all over the news recently after her interview on LBC which sounded like she was looking at means testing pensions.

I didn’t mean to be snidey NanKate but prefer sourced information, apologies if I was seen as such.

keepingquiet

mum2three

They are penalising us for being old. It wouldn't be so bad if the money saved was used for the benefit of our country, but they are giving so much away to other countries. Is this what they mean when they talk about 'an equal society'?

How much are we giving away to 'other' countries?

Maybe better to support people in their own countries than having them coming here?

This is a vacuous argument.

I would be happy to pay more for my bus pass, as with the railcard, if it meant housing costs go down and my son can get a place of his own.

I am not that well off but young people today don't have half the prospects we had so yes, if spending on education and housing is going up, then why not pay a little for my bus pass?

Agreed, but then I have access to a car. I don't drive myself, but Mr D does, and that's very different from having to go everywhere by bus. I may feel differently if circumstances were different.

I'd be interested to know how much senior bus passes cost the country. As the buses are travelling anyway, often with few younger passengers outside of commuting times, letting the empty seats go to older people probably doesn't cost a fortune, and the subsidies to the bus companies may well keep less popular routes open for everyone.

My brother is absolutely horrible about Rachel reeves but he lives in rural Dorset and gets his thinking from the Express and the local pub. I wish he would either get a proper newspaper or stop buying one altogether.

mum2three

They are penalising us for being old. It wouldn't be so bad if the money saved was used for the benefit of our country, but they are giving so much away to other countries. Is this what they mean when they talk about 'an equal society'?

How much are we giving away to 'other' countries?

Maybe better to support people in their own countries than having them coming here?

This is a vacuous argument.

I would be happy to pay more for my bus pass, as with the railcard, if it meant housing costs go down and my son can get a place of his own.

I am not that well off but young people today don't have half the prospects we had so yes, if spending on education and housing is going up, then why not pay a little for my bus pass?