No fun being old under Andy Burnham .

Thanks, Graphite

So, to make it absolutely clear? Burnham was stating a fact, not a future policy.

Except of, course, a number of pensioners born after 1950 still get the 'old' pension rate because the 'new ' rate applied to men born after April 1951 and women born after April 1953. Was it the journalist or Burnham who got this wrong?

Thank you Graphite!

eazybee

Maybe you should be less worried about Burnham being a "True Marxist" and more concerned that the rookie 'journalist' in the Daily Express regards the state pension as a "handout" - presumably with editorial approval?

eazybee

^I'm beginning to go right off him!^ ??

I have been off him since he forced his way into being Prime Minister.
His aims are deliberately divisive: North against South, old against young, working against middle class, feckless against responsible.
A true Marxist.

I dont agree!

I wouldn't mind being under Andy Burnham

Ewwwe CoolCoco - no thank you!
😱

CoolCoco

I wouldn't mind being under Andy Burnham

You could start a whole new thread here. Which MP wouldn't you mind being under?
You have brightened my day. 4th week of the school summer hols and I'm starting to flag.

I think I said a while ago that I had a small crush on him! It’s the black clothes, glasses and northern accent

😄

MazieD 9:26am

I picked up on it MazieD, but as I’ve been “accused” on another thread of “ranting about Farage, as he spurned me-“, thought I’d better keep quiet!

However, as you’ve raised it, haha, my comment on this is that Farage cannot have it both ways, Asylum Seekers cannot be both “housed in 5 star hotels” and “sleeping rough”

CoolCoco

I wouldn't mind being under Andy Burnham

I can absolutely see what you mean

As this is under "Ask a Gran" I assumed the OP wanted an answer so I copied the opening paragraph over to ChatGPT, asked if it was true and if we know any more details. This was the answer:

No — the forum post appears to be mixing up two completely different pension issues.

I’ve checked the current reporting around Andy Burnham and the State Pension, including the specific “before April 1950” date. I can’t find evidence that Burnham has proposed giving pensioners born before 6 April 1950 a lower triple-lock increase than those born afterwards.

In fact, the current evidence points the other way. Burnham has recently reaffirmed his commitment to retaining the State Pension triple lock. In July he answered questions on the subject and said the Labour manifesto commitment remained in place.

There is, however, a live debate about whether the triple lock is affordable in the long term. Advisers and pension-policy organisations have been urging the next government to look at changing it or replacing it, because State Pension spending is rising rapidly. Sky News reported in July that some of Burnham's advisers are hostile to the triple lock and regard it as unsustainable. But that is quite different from saying: "people born before April 1950 will get a smaller annual increase." I haven't found a credible source saying Burnham has proposed that.

So where does 6 April 1950 come from? This is the important bit. 6 April 1950 is a very significant date in the history of the State Pension — but not because of the triple lock. Under the old rules, a woman born on or before 5 April 1950 reached State Pension age at 60. Women born from 6 April 1950 onwards were caught by the gradual increases in women's State Pension age.

That is the issue which eventually produced the WASPI campaign. Women born in the 1950s had their State Pension age increased, in some cases substantially, and many argued that they weren't given adequate notice. The PHSO subsequently found maladministration concerning the information provided to affected women, although the government decided against compensation. So when you see “born before April 1950”, alarm bells should actually ring for State Pension age/WASPI, rather than triple-lock uprating.

What about the old State Pension versus the new State Pension? There is another complication which may have helped create the confusion. The State Pension system changed in April 2016. People who reached State Pension age before then generally receive the basic State Pension (plus any additional pension entitlement), whereas people reaching pension age later are generally under the new State Pension system.

Both the basic State Pension and the new State Pension are subject to the triple lock.

But the amount someone receives isn't necessarily the same, because it depends on their National Insurance record and which pension arrangements they fall under. That's not the same thing as applying a different triple-lock percentage according to someone's date of birth.

And the supermarket argument? The forum poster is making a perfectly understandable point about the cost of living, but ,If the government said:

pensioner A gets a 5% State Pension increase because they were born after 6 April 1950;
pensioner B gets only 3% because they were born before that date,

that would indeed be a new and quite extraordinary policy, and I can find no evidence that Burnham has announced such a scheme.

What is happening is that there is increasing pressure on Burnham to address the cost of the triple lock. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and other pension experts have been questioning whether the current arrangement is sustainable in the long term.

So I would rate the forum claim “misleading/incorrect as written” rather than a genuine announcement by Burnham.

One thing is worth keeping an eye on, though: Burnham has committed to the triple lock as things stand, but the longer-term debate about changing it is very real.

I've long tried to work out the pensions of myself and my DH. He started his first job age 23, I started mine age 16. He retired slightly early at age 63 having paid into his Co pension for 40 years. I reired at age 60 having paid NI conts for 44 years. My state pension didn't kick in till I was nearly 62 as I was caught by the transitionary rules. We were both on final salary schemes and both were on exactly the same salary. Neither of us had any gaps in our contributions except that for part of my working life I was only part-time and such employees were not allowed to join the Teachers' Pension Scheme until a ruling was made under some EU legislation that said the exclusion was illegal and we were all allowed to pay a lump sum to make up our missing years - the lump sum for me was about £4k. We were able to apply for a repayment of the NI contributions we had made as if we were paying the standard rate of NI as opposed to the reduced rate for those in company pension schemes. I applied for this repayment and after about 8 years of repeated requests to be repaid I gave up. So I not only paid the full rate of NI but I was done out of the element of SP it was intended to service.

As a result of this his SP is £110 a month more than mine despite me having paid in for 6 years more than him. Even worse, for about 25 or more years I was also self-employed and paid Class 2 and Class 4 contributions, the former not adding a single penny to my pension and the latter not contributing to anything at all - basically it was an extra amount of income tax.

Every year we both get our statutary increases and as my late dad used to say "1% of a lot isn't the same as 1% of a little".

That said, though the triple lock is a great thing for us pensioners it is likely no longer sustainable, but I would hope that any changes will bear in mind that most pensioners have the same basic needs as others and that must be considered.

I look forward to my £106 a month increase!

‘Don’t run off to Queensland’, as they say here. Might buy a few coffees!

Chocolatelovinggran

I think this is what this is referring to, love0c.
Just a small correction - I was born in 1952, and am on the lower , older rate of State Pension.

I was born in 1953, and yes, I’m on the old SP.

Sarnia

Why has Andy Burnham said that older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date?

Older pensioners pay the same for a supermarket shop as younger pensioners so why the reduction?

I'm beginning to go right off him!

No reply yet to my last post pointing out that the OP is incorrect.

It seems AB did not say "older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date."

However, it is a basic mathematical fact that if you apply the same percentage increase on two different amounts (the old and new SPs), you will preserves the same proportional difference between them, but the absolute difference grows each year.

This has been happening for the last 16 years under 7 governments so blaming Andy Burnham is, to say the least, showing extreme bias.

DaisyAnneReturns

Sarnia

Why has Andy Burnham said that older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date?

Older pensioners pay the same for a supermarket shop as younger pensioners so why the reduction?

I'm beginning to go right off him!

No reply yet to my last post pointing out that the OP is incorrect.

It seems AB did not say "older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date."

However, it is a basic mathematical fact that if you apply the same percentage increase on two different amounts (the old and new SPs), you will preserves the same proportional difference between them, but the absolute difference grows each year.

This has been happening for the last 16 years under 7 governments so blaming Andy Burnham is, to say the least, showing extreme bias.

The op informed me and others that the article was in The Express. So now I know its tosh.

I share Dickens contempt, posted yesterday, that a journalist on the Daily Express finds it acceptable to describe the State Pension as a " handout".

Grrrr. I started work at 17- retired at 63 when RA stopped me. I worked part time 1972-1975, otherwise full time, always paid full tax and insurance. My state pension is not a hand out. It’s something I saved for, towards my older age.

I’m fortunate to have a work related pension. If I didn’t, my life would be very tough. I certainly couldn’t afford to keep my two dogs. - I’d be heart broken if they had to be rehomed

Oh, I feel grit to mention Andy Burnham. He’s a breath of fresh air imo. I’m north west and I’m enjoying hearing his northern accent, seeing his warmth and open responses to people.
It’s warm up north 🌞.

I do think that Burnham’s ability to communicate is one of the most successful we’ve seen in a number of years, and it is clear that he is playing to his strengths.

It is early days yet, but I do think his domestic policies - as they are gradually being played out will certainly attract support and I await his first budget with interest.

Where I think he is untested is in foreign affairs, which are vitally important during these times. Get that right, and he will imo be well on the way to being a very successful PM.

I was one of the sceptics, particularly after the way Starmer was ousted, but I’ve come to accept that politics is indeed a dirty game, but if the U.K. is the winner in the long run, then so be it. Harsh I know.

However, as I said it is early days, and he is largely untested as yet, and we know how events have a habit of completely scuppering a PM.

petra

Someone’s been reading the shite pumped out on FB.
Ignore.

My sentiments exactly.

petra

DaisyAnneReturns

Sarnia

Why has Andy Burnham said that older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date?

Older pensioners pay the same for a supermarket shop as younger pensioners so why the reduction?

I'm beginning to go right off him!

No reply yet to my last post pointing out that the OP is incorrect.

It seems AB did not say "older pensioners, those born before April 1950, will get a lower triple lock deal than those born after that date."

However, it is a basic mathematical fact that if you apply the same percentage increase on two different amounts (the old and new SPs), you will preserves the same proportional difference between them, but the absolute difference grows each year.

This has been happening for the last 16 years under 7 governments so blaming Andy Burnham is, to say the least, showing extreme bias.

The op informed me and others that the article was in The Express. So now I know its tosh.

There are also lots of iterations of the article on FaceBook put out by publications I have never heard of, they are just clickbait and always result in dozens of angry and uninformed responses from pensioners.

Chocolatelovinggran

I share Dickens contempt, posted yesterday, that a journalist on the Daily Express finds it acceptable to describe the State Pension as a " handout".

The haters live to hate, sadly.

eazybee

^I'm beginning to go right off him!^ ??

I have been off him since he forced his way into being Prime Minister.
His aims are deliberately divisive: North against South, old against young, working against middle class, feckless against responsible.
A true Marxist.

He is just trying to redress the balance which has been skewed - I see no evidence of divisiveness.

Thank goodness he is not dismissing those at the bottom of the heap and recognises that education reform has an important place in helping to keep people off that bottom rung.

I am not thrilled by the means of him arriving in the top spot, but it is is not all glamour and it is a bit of a poisoned chalice that he has accepted - I am glad that he has taken this on and is championing the needs of everyone rather than just the elite.

I don't think that makes him a marxist at all.

Iam64

Oh, I feel grit to mention Andy Burnham. He’s a breath of fresh air imo. I’m north west and I’m enjoying hearing his northern accent, seeing his warmth and open responses to people.
It’s warm up north 🌞.

Couldn’t agree more 😂 And I’m not northern.
I don’t care how he got there, he got there and that’s important.