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

DaphneBroon I did not use the word 'nice' anywhere in my post. The suggestion is that when all the bells and whistles go, the money used to pay for them is spread out to all pensioners as a large rise on the basic pension, which would mean the basic pension going up to about £150 and the Pension Credit entitlement would rise to a figure between £175 and £200. Remember those at Pension Credit level are also entitled to get all their Council tax paid and, if they live in rented accommodation, all their rent paid, which is very unfair on poorer pensioners in owner occupied houses.

whitewave unfairness is unfairness whether sanctioned as government policy or not.

For the last eight years many of those in work have seen no pay rises at all despite the continued rise in inflation, many have lost their jobs and been forced to live on severely curtailed benefits or have had to accept detrimental cuts in their terms of employment. Meanwhile pensioners have continued to see their pension rise by the highest rate of wages, prices or 2.5%. Pensions have risen by over 20% in the last 8 years, while many others have had no pay rise at all.

If the triple lock is broken pensions will still be tied in to one of the three locks. In my opinion this should be wages, so that when the rest of the population feels the pain, so do we, and when times are good they benefit and so do we.

I agree with Eloethan and DaphneBroon on this matter.If interest rates were much higher, perhaps it wouldn't matter so much, but as they are so very low,
Hardly worth having any savings,and unlike younger people now ( paying such low rates on mortgage) we paid a lot in the past.I think the triple lock is a good thing.

monica what do you think then of the original idea that pensions had fallen so far behind that the 2.5% was introduced to try to ensure pensions reached a more reasonable level after years of it being tied to RPI or CPI?
Governments of both colour were not willing to raise the pensions as they should have been until Brown tried to do so with the triple lock.

To take that away will almost certainly ensure that pension value falls year on year, and don't forget that we are the lucky generation. Future generations are not going to be able to be confident that their pension will be sufficient, and we have learned since Brexit how they can fall when the value of th pound drops.

I think it is worth taking into account how we compare pension wise. We are certainly not particularly generous. This is a which report comparing us with 15 similarly placed counties

Remember those at Pension Credit level are also entitled to get all their Council tax paid and, if they live in rented accommodation, all their rent paid, which is very unfair on poorer pensioners in owner occupied houses.

Why is that unfair M0nica. One has a need, the other doesn't. I think a 'living pension' would stop some dog in the manger folk feeling that helping those with less than they have been able to accumulate feeling hard done by so from that angle very worthwhile.

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 niceprotected pensions. 'We're all right, Jack

Beg to differ, M0nica (your post of 11.45.28)

Oh and just as a BTW many people (DH included) saw their pension pot vastly reduced as a consequence of the "economic downturn" of 2008/9. About halved.
That was the period savings account interest rates dropped from around 5% to 0.5% too, double whammy.

whitewave

I don't think Gordon Brown brought in the 'triple lock' my belief is it was the Lib Dem/Conservative government .

Gracesgran because if a property is rented its care and maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord not the tenant. House owners do not get money to pay rent because they do not pay rent, that is fine, but they also get no help to maintain their property, which can be of considerable concern.

In the past I have tried to get help for home owners on pension credit who had houses with leaking roofs, front doors that were so rotten they offered neither weather protection nor security or had dangerous wiring and there was no help available, or if there was any, under conditions that the homeowner could not meet.

whitewave I know and agreed with the conditions under which the triple lock was introduced and had no problems with it, but economic conditions were better then, and most people received regular salary rises and unemployment was falling and benefits for the unemployed were more generous. Circumstances have changed and if everyone else has had to suffer, why should we be spared?

If pension rises were tied to wage increases pensions would rise inline with the rest of the working population.

Daphne This is a discussion about the state pension, not occupational pensions, whether done through purchased annuities or company final salary schemes..... and any protected pension is a nice one to have, however large or small.

I am not sure if the administration of the Christmas bonus is much - it will surely just be set into the computerised payment system, very easy if it is straight into a bank account. However, they do always send a letter out about the fuel allowance which must be costly. If it a straightforward payment to everyone it might just as well be absorbed into the normal payments, and the fuel allowance too.
Do they still pay an extra 25p when a pensioner reaches 80? If so, that is ludicrous.

Sorry to hear that gononsuch that must have been a dreadful inconvenience. Internet shopping is the way to go - why venture out at all and be troubled by these inconsiderate people?

Gracesgran re your link to the pension paid in other countries, may I point out that in Australia the state pension is means-tested and those with a certain level in income in retirement or with a level of savings get absolutely nothing.

My very elderly relative gets a reasonably good basic state pension, however, cost of living is much higher than the UK, so that is all relative. Other relatives of retirement age get nothing at all because they have a certain level of savings which they are supposed to use to live on.

I am not sure about other countries in the list.

Most of the countries that pay better pensions also have higher taxation and raised social security charges to pay for them.

One of the reasons that so many French people come over to London to establish new businesses is because the social security payments demanded up front for any new business in France are so onerous that it is a disincentive to entrepreneurial activity.

I believe Theresa May has just said there is no intention of doing this, so it's 'as we were' - at least for the time being.

It was a BTW(by the way M0nica, ) so you do remember using the the word nice in your post then?
Daphne This is a discussion about the state pension, not occupational pensions, whether done through purchased annuities or company final salary schemes..... and any protected pension is a nice one to have, however large or small

daphnebroon I did not use the word 'nice' anywhere in my post

So you do remember using it then?

... because if a property is rented its care and maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord not the tenant. House owners do not get money to pay rent because they do not pay rent, that is fine, but they also get no help to maintain their property, which can be of considerable concern

I haven't seen that argument before M0nica and I can see where you are coming from. I do thing a basic 'living' pension would sort this out though.

I know the Australian pension is means tested 'Jalima' but they are still ensuring a minimum level of income. Some in this country seem to think that poverty serves a purpose and I cannot agree with that.

Ros Altmann seemed to have changed her tenor this morning. She does want (it appears) the pension to rise and commented on how low it is compared to others; she just doesn't think we need the 2.5% to do it. She also said that the triple lock is only agreed/promised until 2020 so she wants a promise to have at least a double lock after that.

She also wants something to be done for the women whose retirement age rose so suddenly and there was discussion about raising the retirement age being unfair on some groups of people who are not 'average' when it comes to length of life. Either she was being portrayed very differently yesterday or she was coming across differently. I know she has tried to raise the problems of state pension age of the women currently retiring so I imagine it may have been the former.

What's the point in making poor pensioners comparatively poorer?
Seems vindictive to me.
2.5% of £150 is just £3.75 a week, and many people my age get a lot less than the £155 that the government decrees for new pensioners. My council tax and water rates went up by nearly that much.
I know one person who says his state pension is just pocket money, but that's all. Everybody else relies on it to eat and heat.

With so many women born in the 50's currently being punished with regard to pensions I am disappointed a women should make these remarks.

I heard Ros Altman this morning on Radio Four talking about a double lock on pensions when the present triple lock is due to end. She also mentoned how small UK pensions were in comparison to those elsewhere in Europe and spoke of the women born in the 1950's whose pension date has been pushed back to 65. It all seemed rather a gloomy prospect for those approaching pension age.

One hears continually of how 'rich' persioners are with their 'gold plated' lifestyles but the truth is that a few wealthly third agers are putting up the income averages for a very poor sector of society.

I am one of the women whose pension age has become elastic. When I started work it was 60, then 63, 65 and now 66. I have also been told by HMG that I will not be getting the full new pension but £21 a week short of the standard figure. Since my fixed costs are rising all the time it is most alarming to think that my pension might well be swallowed up by them leaving less and less or even no disposable amount at the end.

POGS you are right, I have just looked it up, the triple lock was introduced in 2010 by the coalition government. Gracesgran, I had a look at your link and was shocked at how low our pension actually is compared to many other countries, consequently I think it is very poor form to remove the triple lock. I am very lucky in that both myself and my husband have professional pensions, but I know not everyone is in this position, including members of my own family. We have urged all our children to pay into a private pension, and whilst one is in the public scheme, as a doctor, the other two are not, but have listened to us and are paying into a private pension. We should never forget that not everyone is able to do this.

I agree with Maggiemaybe - the 2.5% minimum guarantee should be dropped. If pensions rise with inflation in any case (the other two parts of the "triple lock") then they would not be falling behind other people's income.

If it is felt that the overall basic pension is lower than it should be in comparison to other countries then they should increase it to that level now, rather than messing about with annual increments. And I agree that the winter fuel allowance should be included in the basic pension, it cannot make sense to have such a relatively small sum of money administered separately.

I also agree with Eloethan, it really is about time that the tax system took more from the highest earners - not necessarily by raising tax percentages but by making it much more difficult to evade paying tax. It should be also explained to non-doms that income from Britain should be taxed in Britain.

Lilyflower, I have just taken my state pension at age 63, and I don't get the new pension as my birthday falls in March - new pension started in April. My good friend who is 3 months younger than me doesn't get her state pension till next year, a whole year later even though she's only 3 months younger, and other friends don't get it until they are 66 like you. I think the government have been very disingenuous as most people will not get the full £155 anyway, many will have 'contracted out', others will not have enough years, and I don't know what women who are housewives will get.

Lilyflower where did you find that out about getting less? My pension age is same as yours by the sound of it, now 66, and I haven't heard about the reduction - does it affect all our age?

I don't think any government would be prepared to incorporate the WF payment into the pension, as it stands as a separate amount, it will be easy to dispense with or reduce should any government see fit. The £10 Christmas Bonus has remained as it costs very little in the scheme of things but there would probably be an outcry if it was scrapped altogether.
The unfairness about the Pension Credit is if you have a small private pension, it stops you getting it, therefore you are liable to pay all or most of your Council Tax (and rent if applicable) depending how much your private pension is. I know people who have not even worked as many years as myself who because of Pension Credit and getting rent/council tax paid are better off than me with a small private pension (not grumbling, just saying!)