Suspension of the triple lock

It’s a disgrace.

I am far from being a Tory voter, but I feel strongly that I worked for my pension, and rather resent the implication that doing so is somehow ‘right wing’.

Yes, ‘they’ can call it a benefit- they can call it a tortoise for all I care - but the fact that NI is taken compulsorily from all those who work means that it is also an entitlement.

Owen Jones has a good piece in the Guardian today (Thursday) saying that intergenerational conflict benefits nobody, and that young people who push for the scrapping of the triple lock will end up with disadvantage at both ends of their lives, as they too will be old one day. If memory serves he estimates a 40 year old would be looking at a cut of £700 a year (in today’s terms) by the time they claimed their pension.

It is a con to pretend that pensions have anything to do with intergenerational fairness- it would benefit young people far more if the housing market were sorted out, so that they could have a chance to rent at fair rates whilst saving for a house (if that’s what they want to do) instead of forking out most of their salaries to landlords.

Changing the rules around pensions is a low blow, IMO, as people plan as best they can for older age, and it is too late to undo that planning by the time they are no longer working. It is also too late for many (if not most, given the hike in pension age) to earn money to make up the difference between what they expected to get and the changed figure.

I'll step out of line then. The triple lock has to be suspended, it would be a disgrace to prioritise it over the rest of the population. Yes it will affect my household detrimentally, but the country has a limited pie to slice up and if I take more, someone else gets less. If Owen Jones told me we're in the month of July I'd check the calendar first. I put him on the same level as Boris Johnson, a self-centred, egocentric man who I totally despise. Check out his views on feminists and women in general.

IMO now that successive govts have got the hang of massaging pension payments to pay for other things, they will carry on. It started in 1991 with not topping up the 'NI Fund' as decided post-WW2, Clarke 1993 Budget raising Pension Age, Lilley not informing women etc

We have the lowest pension in Europe.

Many people - particularly women only have the state pension to live on, hopefully topped up by pension credit etc.

The disregard for the poor is utterly characteristic of this government, and we should hold them to account and never forget their callousness.

Do not let them fool you into the old whiskered excuse that it can’t be afforded - not true. But of course we know that they lie as well.

Rosie51

I'll step out of line then. The triple lock has to be suspended, it would be a disgrace to prioritise it over the rest of the population. Yes it will affect my household detrimentally, but the country has a limited pie to slice up and if I take more, someone else gets less. If Owen Jones told me we're in the month of July I'd check the calendar first. I put him on the same level as Boris Johnson, a self-centred, egocentric man who I totally despise. Check out his views on feminists and women in general.

You are buying into their lies

That's not a lie about Owen Jones , it's a completely accurate description.

The big lie is that 'the country has limited resources'. It doesn't. It has a sovereign currency. It can issue as much as it likes at no cost.

The government, for some unfathomable reason, even though it knows that it can do this, is planning to plunge us into deep austerity with swingeing cuts to public spending (good excuse for selling off the NHS). Combined with Brexit, this will destroy our economy.

But while people persist in believing the 'household budget' myth the government will get away with it.

Doodledog

I am far from being a Tory voter, but I feel strongly that I worked for my pension, and rather resent the implication that doing so is somehow ‘right wing’.

Yes, ‘they’ can call it a benefit- they can call it a tortoise for all I care - but the fact that NI is taken compulsorily from all those who work means that it is also an entitlement.

Owen Jones has a good piece in the Guardian today (Thursday) saying that intergenerational conflict benefits nobody, and that young people who push for the scrapping of the triple lock will end up with disadvantage at both ends of their lives, as they too will be old one day. If memory serves he estimates a 40 year old would be looking at a cut of £700 a year (in today’s terms) by the time they claimed their pension.

It is a con to pretend that pensions have anything to do with intergenerational fairness- it would benefit young people far more if the housing market were sorted out, so that they could have a chance to rent at fair rates whilst saving for a house (if that’s what they want to do) instead of forking out most of their salaries to landlords.

Changing the rules around pensions is a low blow, IMO, as people plan as best they can for older age, and it is too late to undo that planning by the time they are no longer working. It is also too late for many (if not most, given the hike in pension age) to earn money to make up the difference between what they expected to get and the changed figure.

That is an excellent summary, Doodle dog. I apologise for the flippant (and angry) "Tory Voters". I don't know if it is possible but I have asked GNHQ to edit it to read "many".

However, I do feel that the NI contribution is far removed from whatever pension is paid from tax. I notice Sunak and other government representatives talking about what the "tax payer can afford" more than ever.

I totally agree that using the Tory culture war and changing existing rules is a "low blow" but sadly not a surprising one. As one Tory MP pointed out the other day (I think on Politics Live), to be a Capitalist you need capital assets. Apparently, if you do not have enough of these tied up and away from government hands, you don't count for much for him or his far right, extreme capitalist, government.

I suspect it's an attempt to mitigate removing the £20 uprating to Universal Credit, from which about five million families have benefitted. Many of those families are in "red wall" constituencies and the Tories want to keep their votes.

It doesn't have to be 'either/or' though, does it?

As MaisieD says, cutbacks are a choice, not a necessity. Again, the 'take from one to benefit another' thing is a con, and benefits neither group.

It would be despicable of the government to claw back the £20 uprating (not that I think they are above doing so) but it really has nothing to do with pensions.

No worries, PippaZ. Tone is not easy to read online

growstuff

I suspect it's an attempt to mitigate removing the £20 uprating to Universal Credit, from which about five million families have benefitted. Many of those families are in "red wall" constituencies and the Tories want to keep their votes.

That's actually quite breathtaking, growstuff

Make everybody poorer (for no credible economic reason whatsoever) so that no group can make 'It's not fair' comparisons...

The emphasis should also be on poorer.

This is levelling, alright. But levelling down...

I can well live without the triple lock but many thousands would benefit from it.
This government has been paying millions of workers 70% of their salary for nearly two years now.
Obviously this was necessary but they managed to find that money, likewise they can find the money for a royal yacht.
They will be putting older people even more in difficulty if they do not honour their agreement.
But when have they always done that?

It's already been announced that the £20 uprating will be removed. How do you think those people will react when, at the same time, it's announced that pensions are likely to be increased by 8%? Nobody needs to be an expert in behavioural science to work that one out. The concept of solidarity between different groups, both of which are being attacked, is very weak.

I'm not supporting it, so don't shoot the messenger. However, it's fairly obvious how this government works.

This cartoon sums it up.

PS. It's not just UC recipients, but NHS and other public service workers.

I suspect the government thinks it has the "grey vote" in the bag anyway. I read somewhere or other that only 14% of pensioners voted for a party other than Tory in the last election. Sorry, I can't find the source of that, but it sounds quite credible. With such a huge margin, the Tories can afford to lose a few.

I could manage entirely happily if the triple lock went, as could many other pensioners.

But there are those who rely entirely on the state pension and they are going to struggle. It is not enough to live on.

A promise is a promise.

Sub-dividing pensioners amongst themselves is the next step in division. Of course there are many, for whom the state pension isn't a major source of income and they will continue to vote Tory come what may. Then there are the rest ...

Not being in the ‘I’m alright Jack’ camp, I think the triple lock will have to go, much as I like it.
I would prefer to see those who are managing on the state pension only have that topped up instead.
It isn’t right, when others much younger are struggling moneywise for so many older people to continue getting the triple lock pension when the majority have a private pension as well. The state ‘old age’ pension takes the lion’s share of all the benefits paid out in the UK.

lemongrove Have you converted?

I guess the way to do that is to increase Pension Credit and to tinker with the threshold for receiving it, so that those just above the threshold don't end up worse off. Either that, or use the tax system to adjust. (Not sure because I haven't looked at the figures.)

You are absolutely correct that the old age pension takes up the lion's share of all benefits, which is what people forget when they look at the eye watering amount of benefits paid out. Many struggling people of working age are, however, aware of it.

The other solution is to do something about housing for younger people, which is costing them dear, and is a major source of poverty. The whole housing scenario in the UK is a shambles and causes many problems.

Nope growstuff ...and if you were interested enough to look up all my comments ( don’t blame you for not doing so)? on the various threads on pensions we have had over the years, then you would see that has always been my stance on it.

Triple lock pensions. Another broken promise.
Levelling up. Another lie.

Never trust a Tory.

lemongrove

Nope growstuff ...and if you were interested enough to look up all my comments ( don’t blame you for not doing so)? on the various threads on pensions we have had over the years, then you would see that has always been my stance on it.

Ah OK! I can calm down now

Promises made at a time when the economy is doing well, and the population at large are doing well, is not the same when times change.In any case, as long as the state pension is a fair one, the better way now to do things is to give those on a lower income level more and those on higher ones a little less.
After Covid, times really have changed, and we must see that.

MoorlandMooner

Triple lock pensions. Another broken promise.
Levelling up. Another lie.

Never trust a Tory.

That's absolutely true.

I haven't even given a personal opinion, but I had noticed this would be a broken promise.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It is so obvious as (just with the promises on Norther Ireland and so much else) there was no way that all the juggling balls could be kept in the air forever. It's been a case of buying off various groups, but it was obvious that promises couldn't be kept. Which one will be the cheapest in terms of votes to let down?

Watch the Conservative spin machine go into overdrive to justify it.