The reform party has agreed to continue the triple lock

It's not "proof" Meandrogrog but many would see it as reasonable extrapolation or inference.

It's enough to convince me not to vote Reform.

Forget Reform that’s a distraction, I’m irritated by this knee jerk triple lock issue. It sounds really generous but all it is is keeping up with rise in average wages, rise in prices or 2.5% whichever is highest. For example Public sector pensioners will be getting a projected rise of 3.5% and they are already in gold plated pensions. Our State pension is the lowest in the western world. I think it matches Albania. To keep this mean pension in line with cost of living rises is just really basic brought in by Wilson I believe . People who already have work pensions and claim state pension pay tax on it.
The main reason why it is so low is that it is available to people who have not contributed a penny …if they are poor. In fact they get more pension credit, as they don’t pay council tax etc. I paid in for forty years. I refused to pay the reduced married woman’s premium as I fought for equality. Now as an older pensioner I get a lot less than newer pensioners even those that haven’t contributed.
This is why it is a hot subject because is unfair’ here you just have to be old to get it. That should be a separate benefit. State pensions which have been contributory are not welfare. I happened to work for small firms and coops that didn’t pay pensions. Things were different then.
A load of claptrap is spoken on triple lock as it sounds generous, language is so powerful. it’s caught the medias attention for knee jerk response as soon as any problem arises in the benefit sector. It won’t be dropped because those in the know realise it’s cheap and old pensioners with no other pensions who contributed all their lives are not receiving a decent promised pension. If like me you have savings, to guard against poverty in the future if care is needed then no help is given. This is also why it can’t be means tested as that puts the hard working self respecting pensioners into a category of poverty - because that is what the state pension reduces them to.
Triple lock should be renamed basic safeguard against inflation. Also you don’t automatically get the state pension, you have to claim it. Those that don’t need it perhaps shouldn’t claim it - it’s the rich pensioners who give the non receivers of other pensions a bad name and makes them feel very vulnerable indeed.

I agree with a lot of that, grannygranby.

I think that far from being more generous these days pensions for a lot of people have dropped. My mother worked for less than ten years in total (before I was born and after we all grew up) but paid SERPS and inherited my father's pension and his SERPS, so she gets roughly double my SP, and I paid in for 50 years. That is unfair.

My friend hasn't worked since university, but when her children reached the age when she could no longer get credit for them, she paid the small voluntary contributions on the advice of her accountant, so gets a full SP despite never having paid income tax. That is unfair.

Someone else could have worked from leaving school to retirement but earned too little to have a full record, or have been kept 'off the books' by her employer. That is unfair.

Someone paying the Married Woman's Stamp might not qualify for the same pension as her colleague who paid the full amount, but will get her income made up by PC and be better off. That isn't fair either.

There are so many differing sets of circumstances, but IMO the bottom line should be that if you paid in (for want of a better word - yes, I know that every generation pays for the one above) you should always be better off than if you didn't. That is where we are going wrong as a country, I think. From youth to old age it feels that those who don't work are given, and the money is taken from those who do, and it's wrong.

Having said that, today's pensioners have made their retirement plans on the assumption that they would get what they were told they would get. It wouldn't be fair to change that when it's too late to do anything about it. It's a mess.

Pensioners are getting what they contributed back and a lot more besides its being topped up by current workers and general taxation as well. Certainly it's not high enough for the many without savings and there are too many anomalies particularly for women and disabled.

The new state pension is closer to the real cost of living, that should be available to all. Like other countries there should be a wealth limit to claiming a state pension to make it fairer for those that have no savings, but there is going to be howls of protest, from the wealthier on GN that they paid in and want the money.

Lots of pensioners paid in a great deal more than they’re getting back, David. We did.

Don’t have a problem with that, happy to have been in a position to do so, just pointing it out.

There will I believe come a time when SP is means tested, it’s becoming unsustainable, but to do so retrospectively would be unfair. A date would need to be announced well in advance so that people can plan accordingly.

Basgetti

Lots of pensioners paid in a great deal more than they’re getting back, David. We did.

Don’t have a problem with that, happy to have been in a position to do so, just pointing it out.

There will I believe come a time when SP is means tested, it’s becoming unsustainable, but to do so retrospectively would be unfair. A date would need to be announced well in advance so that people can plan accordingly.

Of course those that did not get back what they paid died early but thats not the principle of paying for cost of living, that why it's called National Insurance, it covers the risk of living longer

What do you think would be a suitable advanced warning?

The annual SP pension triple lock process increases payments every April by the highest of various metrics- average earnings growth , Consumer Price Index, inflation or 2/5%- ie the highest of all of those rises over the previous 12 months will be the amount the SP payments rise for the following year. The triple lock process is not applied to any other age group in welfare payments, including children or expectant mothers in relation to maternity benefits.

UK SP payments represent the largest component of the UK welfare bill, roughly over half of total welfare spending. Additional Pensioner benefits (e.g. Pension Credit and fuel allowance) increase that proportion and far outweighs spending on any other area such as Universal Credit which takes up about 28% of the total welfare budget.

The total UK Welfare budget is estimated to be 10.8% to 10.9% in 2025/2026, around a quarter of total managed government spending. As a comparison welfare spending as a share of GDP was 11.85% in 2020/21 and has since fallen though Badenoch and Farage do not proclaim this fact. Total welfare spending is currently roughly 0.8% higher than just before the 2007/8 financial crisis.

Over the decade 2015 to 2025 UK health outcomes have worsened relative to European peers with widening gaps in life expectancy, higher avoidable mortality rates and lower cancer survival rates, often falling into the lowest ranks among western countries. Arguably this is as a result of those 10 years of Conservative austerity and its socio economic impacts. What is fact is that the Labour Government inherited this situation alongside the budget deficit.

France, Germany and Denmark are among the highest spenders on Social welfare in Europe with spending representing over 25- 30% of GDP, Spain sitting just slightly lower.

Badenoch wants the welfare budget cutting to increase Defence funding and says this will be funded by reinstating the 2 child cap on Universal Credit and Child Tax credit but Im not sure this will raise the necessary funding she claims. Plus it was the Conservatives that hollowed out the Defence budget over 13 years at the same time as austerity. Farage also says the UK has to choose between welfare and defence. He plans to keep the triple lock but has not set out where other welfare benefit cuts will fall.

It has to be taken into account also UK GDP and growth has fallen since leaving Brexit.

All parties therefore need grapple with the challenges- how to increase growth and GDP, what proportion of GDP should be spent on welfare, and where welfare cuts are proposed to hold onto triple lock- and in an increasingly volatile world how to increase the Defence Budget. Plus how to fund the NHS and actually set about improving the 10 year fall in UK health outcomes and falling life expectancy rates.

Labour is dealing with those challenges currently for better or worse depending on your view.

I have yet to fully understand the and see the policy proposals of the other parties to deal with such challenges and associated spending budgets.

Reform has no government experience and is not doing well at Local Governments level where it pledged to reduce council tax payments. So for me it's too risky to elect a party with no government experience and failing at Local Government level apart from its anti immigrant and racist ideology and values. A promise to keep the triple lock- is just that- a vague promise with no realistic foundation.

David49

Pensioners are getting what they contributed back and a lot more besides its being topped up by current workers and general taxation as well. Certainly it's not high enough for the many without savings and there are too many anomalies particularly for women and disabled.

The new state pension is closer to the real cost of living, that should be available to all. Like other countries there should be a wealth limit to claiming a state pension to make it fairer for those that have no savings, but there is going to be howls of protest, from the wealthier on GN that they paid in and want the money.

How is it 'fairer' for those who haven't paid in to be given money that has been taken from those who have worked and paid tax and NI?

And I'm not 'howling', I am asking a question. When I retired it was on the understanding that I would get the full SP (to which I am qualified because I paid full NI contributions for more than the requisite number of years) and taking that away to give it to those who have nether worked nor saved, or those who paid a lower rate would not be remotely 'fair'.

“Of course those that did not get back what they paid died early but thats not the principle of paying for cost of living, that why it's called National Insurance, it covers the risk of living longer

What do you think would be a suitable advanced warning?“

Sorry David, can’t quote you for some reason.

Well no. If we live to be 100 we won’t get back what we have paid in as higher earners over 40 decades. But that’s fine. We are members of a society and have always been happy to pay our dues.

Sufficient warning, as was given to the so-called waspi women.

Doodledog

David49

Pensioners are getting what they contributed back and a lot more besides its being topped up by current workers and general taxation as well. Certainly it's not high enough for the many without savings and there are too many anomalies particularly for women and disabled.

The new state pension is closer to the real cost of living, that should be available to all. Like other countries there should be a wealth limit to claiming a state pension to make it fairer for those that have no savings, but there is going to be howls of protest, from the wealthier on GN that they paid in and want the money.

How is it 'fairer' for those who haven't paid in to be given money that has been taken from those who have worked and paid tax and NI?

And I'm not 'howling', I am asking a question. When I retired it was on the understanding that I would get the full SP (to which I am qualified because I paid full NI contributions for more than the requisite number of years) and taking that away to give it to those who have nether worked nor saved, or those who paid a lower rate would not be remotely 'fair'.

How is it fairer.

Because we live in a society that cares for those less fortunate, because what you paid still isn't enough and you have plenty. Nice house mortgage paid, nice cars, nice pension , nice nest egg for your children, maybe all those.

Basgetti. LOL if you've paid more than me you are super rich, I havnt got back what I paid in either, Ive always played by the rules, if they change the rules I might not like it but it's not going to break my heart if I don't get 175 quid a week.

But it is going to make a difference the those that are struggling

Wow, David, am I about to agree with you.

David49 08.31: "How is it fairer.

Because we live in a society that cares for those less fortunate, because what you paid still isn't enough and you have plenty. Nice house mortgage paid, nice cars, nice pension , nice nest egg for your children, maybe all those.

Basgetti. LOL if you've paid more than me you are super rich, I havnt got back what I paid in either, Ive always played by the rules, if they change the rules I might not like it but it's not going to break my heart if I don't get 175 quid a week. But it is going to make a difference the those that are struggling".

Exactly David49. I question sometimes whether we are a society that really does care for those less fortunate than ourselves. In an ideal world if there is a triple lock process for state pension payments it should be fairly applied to all welfare payments, for all age groups, in the same way.

Let's face it, it was the Conservative-lib Dem coalition government who introduced the triple lock in 2010. Overtly as a vote catcher - to capture and retain votes of the SP age demographic.

However it has become a noose around all parties necks- ie a vote loser if they seek to drop or change it with. Parties still seek to capture and retain the SP demographic votes by promising to retain it- as currently Reform are promising.

Because we live in a society that cares for those less fortunate
Yes, thankfully.

I paid in 32 years but get just £169 pw.
The reason I stayed at home to look after DC was because it was the norm then, because there was no HRP and because DH was away for up to a year at a time and no, we did not all get credited with Home Responsibilities Protection.

I'm just explaining why because there seems to be a lot of resentment even between older generations regarding Pension Benefits.

Had I been younger, had there been nurseries, mothers encouraged not discouraged to work, I might have had more chances and managed to contribute the 35 years now required for a pension of £241.30 pw.

One problem with the triple lock (not that I disagree with it) is that the gap between the old SP and the new SP becomes ever wider.

I don't think a state pension should necessarily be based on getting back what you pay in, although most people will get back more than their contributions, particularly if they use the NHS. I think having a basic rate of pension and a variable rate of contributions depending on earnings is fair. NI is capped anyway, so above the cap high earners don't pay more than others.

But the number of contributions paid should be important, so someone working for 15 years should get half of what someone working for 30 gets, and someone choosing to pay a reduced amount should expect to get a reduced pension. I'd like to see something done about employers who keep staff below the threshold, too.

What to do about those who simply refuse to work and end up with nothing is tricky. We can't have people with no or very low incomes, but there has to be an incentive for people to support themselves if they are capable of doing so. If someone believes a spouse's contributions cover them too, then his (or her) pension should cover them, and pension should be factored into the decision if people choose to stay at home when their children are at school. If the spouse's income is too low and there are no savings then the state has to step in, but those who have worked all their lives should always get more SP, IMO. The idea that it makes sense to penalise them in order to pay more to those who haven't worked beggars belief.

Allira

One problem with the triple lock (not that I disagree with it) is that the gap between the old SP and the new SP becomes ever wider.

That's a fair point. If there were a rise of £X applied to both systems it would be better. It would mean that the six extra years would be written off, but with 'natural wasteage' (horrible phrase, I know) that would die out anyway, and there are so many anomalies that one more wouldn't make much difference.

Also, it's not about caring for those less fortunate, it's about caring for those who have to work and pay taxes and then find that those who can afford not to get more.

I believe that one of the reasons for the popularity of groups such as Reform is that working people see non-working people playing the system and feel resentful. That is not the fault of immigrants, but the idea that 'other people' get given things that those who pay for them don't is easy to play on, and in many ways, for those on low pay there is little difference between a life on benefits and one on minimum wage. That has to be corrected somehow, IMO - not just in pension, but across the board.

Pensioners are getting what they contributed back and a lot more besides its being topped up by current workers and general taxation as well.

How can you possibly say that? You don’t know how much anyone has contributed to the “system” in terms of NIC. I do as I requested my Working Life letter after I retired in 2021. I was a high earner who worked for 50 years and paid a lot of NIC.

I don’t receive full State Pension because of RDA/COPE deductions. That’s how the system works and understand why that is, but I’ll have to live to a very old age to “recoup” what I paid in even being contracted out of SERPS, which is very unlikely. Fortunately, I don’t think of it that way. Only 35 years of NIC count towards the SP anyway.

NIC isn’t only a contribution towards SP. It covers other contributory benefits such as maternity benefit and bereavement benefits for a spouse or civil partner, the contributory elements of JSA and ESA, Guardian’s Allowance and Statutory Redundancy Payments where an employer is insolvent.

General taxation does not top up the National Insurance Fund. Let’s make that quite clear. Contributory benefits are paid from current NIC collected by HMRC plus interest earned from the Debt Management Office (DMO) on the fund’s credit balance (at the last NIF accounts £76 billion) and from the credit balance itself.

Legislation requires that a credit balance of at least 1/6th of the estimated annual NIF expenditure must be kept in the fund as a contingency against a temporary shortfall in NIC collected. That could be due to say a long-term strike by many workers (or indeed HMRC staff) or a very large number of redundancies in a recession. The minimum sum required at the moment is around £25 billion so an additional £50 billion surplus has been built up. This is mainly due to the equalisation of SP age, the acceleration to those changes by Osborne (who bragged it was the easiest saving he had ever made) and the general increase in SP age for both women and men. In other words people have worked and paid NIC for longer while pensions have been paid later, six years later in the case of some women.

The credit balance was £86 billion but Jeremy Hunt reduced the rate of NIC from 12% to 10% to 8% as a pre-election sweetener costing the fund £10 billion.

Someone could make the argument that people affected by changes to the SP age paid for that NIC cut.

It is only if the credit balance falls below the 1/6th contingency that the Treasury is obliged to step in to top up the fund. Year-on-year is has never had to.

However, for 2024/25, the total paid out of the fund was £143 billion against net NIC collected (after the NHS allocation) of £131 billion - which is why government is having to draw on other fund income and the credit balance to cover the benefits paid out.

The rising cost of the SP including the triple lock means the fund’s credit balance is projected to be exhausted by 2044 - or sooner if inflation is higher - with Treasury having to top up the fund from around 2040 or sooner.

It won’t be topped up from taxation as taxation doesn’t fund public spending however much people want to think that it does. The government spends first and taxes second. It spends far more than it collects in taxes. If people would only get their heads around this and politicians would stop describing public expenditure in those terms as having to tax one person to pay for something someone else gets, people might stop feeling so resentful.

Life’s a lottery. Some people will live to a 100 and beyond and may have claimed a pension for 50 years or more with minimal contributions. I’ve written before about this, that there are 720,000 people receiving Category B, C or D pensions that they paid no NIC for. Some will work and pay NIC for decades but won’t live to see their pension. My DH was one of those, paid NIC for almost 40 years and died age 55.

The widow’s pension was abolished 25 years ago. SP inheritance has been abolished bar some limited inheritance of SERPS/S2P. The rules for people reaching SP age after 5 April 2016 are much less generous than for people reaching SP age before that date.

Over 800,000 people receive SP in excess of £300 a week, some £400 a week, the vast majorty on the old SP.

Per capita, paying the SP will become less expensive as those people on big pensions die and and younger pensioners with only the single tier pension replace them but as more “boomers’ reach SP age the overall cost will increase.

It’s isn’t a fair system but there has to be a safety net. SP is topped up with Pension Credit for the poorest pensioners. Most PC claimants are single women.

I’d rather the government abolished NIC altogether for all the arguments it causes and increased other taxes.

In my opinion, the state pension must be inflation linked. If not, the pension will worth less and less over the years and more pensioners will ended up in poverty.

*Meandrogrog
This makes sense to me, as does limiting the use of the NHS to UK citizens. *

My country of origin does have a system whereby citizens of the country pay much less in medical costs compared to permanent residents and foreigners on work visas. However, everyone is issue with an identity card.

Nigel Farage is against the introduction of identity cards. Without this, how are you supposed to show proof that you are a British citizen?

Will you be required to
1) bring your British passport to your local surgery and local hospital as proof.
2) Always carry your passport just in case you fell ill and need the ambulance?

How about those people who never travel out of this country and do not even have a passport?

Reform will say what they want you to hear but whether they can implement what they promise after they get into power is something else.

If Reform introduces health insurance into NHS, Nigel Farage can always give the contract to his chums in America since they have experience of running an insurance- based health system.

However, it will be the very people who voted for him - the working class who will bear the brunt since they are the ones who cannot afford to pay the insurance on top of everything else, they must pay.

What a brilliant explanation, Graphite! Thank you.

Graphite: 12.24 "The rising cost of the SP including the triple lock means the fund’s credit balance is projected to be exhausted by 2044 - or sooner if inflation is higher - with Treasury having to top up the fund from around 2040 or sooner. It won’t be topped up from taxation as taxation doesn’t fund public spending however much people want to think that it does. The government spends first and taxes second. It spends far more than it collects in taxes. If people would only get their heads around this and politicians would stop describing public expenditure in those terms as having to tax one person to pay for something someone else gets, people might stop feeling so resentful".

Exactly Graphite. I'm not advocating against the triple lock but when political parties like Reform who promise to keep the triple lock need to be transparent and honest how they are going to address this and fund it within the whole welfare budget they put forward in spending plans.

Reform says it will fund the triple lock policy through "the biggest cuts to the benefits bill ever seen in the history of this country."

They've not set out how or where they are proposing cuts. SP and SP age benefits together makes up around 60% of the welfare budget (including widows pensions, pensioner credit, winter fuel payments etc alongside SP) . Universal credit (awarded to working families with a low income) makes up the around 27- 28% of total welfare spending= around 12-13% remaining of the welfare budget.

So from this 12-13% remaining the none working benefits that need funding. That is for example health and disability benefit, housing benefit, support for unemployed families, disability and incapacity benefits. It is the disability and incapacity benefits proportion that is the fastest growing in this none working group.

Who exactly is Reform seeking too impoverish in all of the above groups to achieve "the biggest cuts to the benefits bill ever seen in the history of this country." ?!?

Leninism
. LOL if you've paid more than me you are super rich, I havnt got back what I paid in either, Ive always played by the rules, if they change the rules I might not like it but it's not going to break my heart if I don't get 175 quid a week. But it is going to make a difference the those that are struggling"

I don’t know what your circumstances are but we have paid millions in tax and insurance between us over the years. Very fortunate we were to be able to do so.
I wasn’t complaining, either. Was simply pointing out to David that his statement was incorrect.

Basgetti 13.44: "Leninism
. LOL if you've paid more than me you are super rich, I havnt got back what I paid in either, Ive always played by the rules, if they change the rules I might not like it but it's not going to break my heart if I don't get 175 quid a week. But it is going to make a difference the those that are struggling"

I don’t know what your circumstances are but we have paid millions in tax and insurance between us over the years. Very fortunate we were to be able to do so.
I wasn’t complaining, either. Was simply pointing out to David that his statement was incorrect"

Who is Lenisim Basgetti?