Ros Altmann's comments on the triple lock on state pensions

I appreciate the winter fuel allowance but the £10 we are given before Christmas must cost more to administer. I do not understand why it is not tagged on to the winter fuel allowance, or dropped.

We are the voters so that must be at the back of many minds when big changes are afoot.

As pensioners who are taxed on their income, we've got no sympathy for "poorest pensioners", we are some of the few who knew that one day we would retire, and are now enjoying our retirement.

I know that the government guarantees a minimum of £155 a week and there's help with rent and poll tax, but what happens when they die, who pays for the funeral, so they have the last laugh after all, I'm sure I said this before no doubt one of the trolls will tell me.

Haven't heard about this can someone enlighten me thanks

This is the first link that comes up on Googlehulahoop but it is being reported on the news too.

I really dislike the pats on the head of WFA and Christmas Bonus Charlygirl. The easiest thing would surely be to raise the pension by the amount equal to these two (above the triple lock) added together and abolish them. There must be a saving in the admin by simplifying them.

You really are unbelievable in your view or your fellow man/women Gononsuch
As pensioners who are taxed on their income, we've got no sympathy for "poorest pensioners", we are some of the few who knew that one day we would retire, and are now enjoying our retirement.

Many - probably the majority - of the people who only have state pension would have loved the opportunity to put themselves in your position. I promise you that, as one who is in this category, I did not set out to be poor in my old age. How do you think it helps (other than making you feel you are a more virtuous person) to have pensioners in poverty. No one is suggesting you should not benefit too. If the basic pension as set at a level that took everyone out of benefits we would be doing everyone a favour.

If my memory serves me well, the triple lock was brought in by Brown because pensions had fallen so far behind over previous decades, and this was introduced to try to get it up to a reasonable standard.

If we loose this it will almost certainly mean that they will start to fall behind again, as it is so tempting for governments to give a bit and promise more in the future.

of your fellow man/women, not or - sorry.

Blimey gonon that is a very jaundiced view of your fellow citizens!!!

My Mum was of the generation that didn't work once she got married and Dads pension is so tiny that she needed help via rate relief etc. She served in the war, worked hard with a small income. The cultural norm dictated how she lived her life.

It make sense whitewave imo to continue it and pull the basic pension past at least the Pension Credit level. The idea of the new pension being set at this level was so the government could stop one benefit and doing this with the old pension would seem to make sense for the same reason. There has been quite a bit of research recently when looking at the Basic Income idea which shows that a level which takes everyone above benefit levels actually saves money.

I am glad that you are enjoying your retirement gonon - that is a huge relief to me.

I agree with many posters that the admin of the WFA and Christmas bonus must be huge and it would be easier to just add those sums to the basic pension.

My basic pension is nowhere near the £155 pw (missed out on the contribution credits when I was at home raising children), nor is my OH's (too much education!). But we get by.

Like Luckygirl my state pension is less than £155 per week, oh and by the way gononsuch which century are YOU in, there's no such thing as the "poll tax".
Perhaps a less smug "I'm all right Jack" attitude?

Went shopping at Sainsbury the other day and an oap collapsed at the till, I was annoyed because I had to go and queue at another till, just let me say that I'm not the only one, while she was on the floor someone stole her purse and nobody gave chase.

I've started using internet shopping, this must be the way forward.

Everyone pays tax on their income, after the first £10,600 (about to be £11,000) You don't pay on that £10,600 either, gononsuch, so you are in exactly the same tax position as the poorest pensioner.

Should have been "just gone up to £11,000"

Gononsuch I was just about to write an outraged response to both your emails when I suddenly realised that you were a wind-up merchant. I get so BORED with wind-up merchants thinking it is funny to put outrageous posts on a site for older people. It shows such a lack of imagination and intelligence. Go outside and get a life.

Yes, I just had a light bulb moment about her/him MOnica. No one can be that nasty.

I am completely with Ros Altmann on this. It has been shaming and embarrassing during the years of austerity to see that while young people suffer, lost jobs, no pay rises, more and more job insecurity to see how we older people sat tight with our nice protected pensions. 'We're all right, Jack'

I have long advocated a straight state pension without any bells and whistles, no winter fuel payments, no free tv licenses, no bus passes, even no free prescriptions. These are insulting and demeaning to older people, suggesting that we are incapable of managing our money and need to have little sums 'protected' so we do get our prescriptions instead of spending the money on wine and high living.

In its place the money saved should be used to give all pensioners a one-off large increase in state pension, and then tie further pension rises to the trend in wages, so if our children struggle so do we. The government will save a packet in not having to administer all these various schemes. Bus companies will soon offer schemes equivalent to the Senior Citizens railcard. Those requiring regular medications can buy a annual season ticket, currently £104 a year

The Pension Credit scheme lower limit can be raised by the amount of the pension enhancement so that no-one is likely to lose out financially by the changes.

I was prepared to be outraged when I saw the headlines about Ros Altmann's comments, but having read the details, I'm not. Her suggestion is a double lock - that state pensions should go up by the same rate as salaries or prices, whichever is the higher. The third part of the triple lock (the 2.5% minimum guarantee) would be dropped. This is so that pensions would not rise out of proportion to other incomes during periods of deflation.

This seems fair enough to me. Though it's all academic, as I'm one of the WASPI women who won't have a state pension at all till I'm 66 anyway.

The thing is Monica our State Pension may be protected, but at somewhere just north of £100 per week , it is hardly "nice".
I know I shouldn't discuss other threads, but the food shopping thread showed remarkably few posts indicating that people are feeding themselves, plus heating a home, travel, paying for domestic maintenance which they might have been able to do themselves when younger, buy any clothes or household items on even £155 a week. It is what many younger people spend on a night out and just because we are retired does not exempt us from a need (?) to be adequately fed or kept warm.
Many of us coped through redundancies, periods of unemployment in the last 20 years and various economic downturns recessions, and that can slash any pension you had as well as writing off savings (don't mention interest rates on those) bour houses may hav been cheaper but mortgage interest rates were MUCH higher, and not every job was pensionable.
So while most of us will continue to make the best of it, as we have no other option, please don't saddle me or anybody with a guilt trip!

Oh poor poor gononsuch to be inconvenienced by an old dear collapsing in front of you. I hope you stepped over her carefully, wouldn't want to soil those shoes of yours.
I am grateful that I found an entirely opposite reaction and the kindness of strangers when I came a similar cropper on a Northern Line train between Old Street and Euston a fortnight ago.

To be quite honest, I didn't know exactly what the difference is between the trip-lock and double-lock state pension and had to look it up.

It seems that with the triple-lock, pensions rise by the inflation rate, average earnings or 2.5%, whichever is highest. The double-lock would rise in line with prices or earnings, not inflation.

The reasoning behind it is that if we experienced deflation - with earnings and prices dropping - it would be unfair for pensioners to continue to receive 2.5%.

If state pensions were already at a point that was vaguely in line with average earnings, this might seem reasonable, but they are not. The state pension in this country in 2016 is £7,500 (I don't know if that includes SERPS or not) and I believe the average earnings figure is £26,500.

In Sweden the maximum state pension is just over £25,000, in Spain 26,630, in Germany £26,366 - only a few thousand below average earnings.

A study by the International Longevity Centre ranked Britain 21st out of 27 countries, and labelled our state pension “one of the least generous in Europe”.

I don't pay tax on my pensions but my husband pays a substantial amount. He does not resent it - he realises he is fortunate to receive enough pension to warrant paying tax. I find it incredible that someone who is comfortably off is so begrudging of those who, usually through no fault of their own, have very little to live on and are now threatened with even less.

I too have great sympathy for younger people, many of whom are really struggling. The answer to this is, in my view, not to make the lives of pensioners even more difficult but to raise the income tax level on high earners, simplify the tax system in order to close tax-dodging loopholes, and to collect tax from companies rather than allow them to dictate how much they are willing to pay. On top of that, some sort rent controls would also be of great assistance to young people.

gononsuch Having read your later post re an OAP collapsing at the till, I'm wondering if you are just trying to wind everyone up. Nobody is that heartless, surely.

Yes that's right eleo the triple lock is to ensure that the pension continues to rise year on year until it reaches a reasonable rate. Nobody can say that the pension is generous or even adequate if you compare it with other European countries.

To say that the pensioner has benefited at the expense of the young is entirely wrong. The young have suffered at the hands of the government. The pensioner has received a year on year rise in line with government policy.

If the intention is to withdraw this then the government should make it clear that they are prepared to see pensions fall. Not to make it look as if as a result of cutting the 2.5% will ensure more money for the young, that is a disgraceful and deceitful way of going about it.