Suspension of the triple lock

We always talk about pensioners on pension credits, but what about pensioners who have full state pension, no occupational pensions, and are not topped up by UC?
It's ok for some people receiving state pension, who have a occupational pension , or a good amount of savings, but others need the safety net of the triple lock.
My own view is the triple lock should be kept. This is something we have worked and paid into. Pensions should not be classed as a benefit.

lemongrove

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.

But there will be people with occupational pensions who will say they've paid for them, which they have.

Doodledog?

Please correct me if I am wrong. The pension is going up because wages have gone up, yes? Does that not mean that tax revenue will go up, which will pay for it?

I don’t see anything party political in the subject growstuff
There will be Labour voters on this thread who intend to have
( if at all possible) as much state pension as possible along side their private pensions, and Conservative voters who manage on a small private pension (me) who think the triple lock will have to go for the benefit of all.

It will probably be the fuel allowance disappearing soon, too.
It will become means tested (which will prove more expensive than just paying it to everyone).

Never trust a Tory.
Actually I would say never trust a politician as Gordon Brown managed to decimate private pensions too.

I think Doodledog’s comments are absolutely spot on.

....as long as we keep our tenner at Christmas eh Callistemon? I rely on that for Maltesers.

rafichagran

We always talk about pensioners on pension credits, but what about pensioners who have full state pension, no occupational pensions, and are not topped up by UC?
It's ok for some people receiving state pension, who have a occupational pension , or a good amount of savings, but others need the safety net of the triple lock.
My own view is the triple lock should be kept. This is something we have worked and paid into. Pensions should not be classed as a benefit.

Somebody with a full state pension, no occupational pensions and not topped up by Pension Credits, has no housing costs. If they did, they would be eligible for Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Reduction. (Not quite sure how that works for couples.) Therefore, there really aren't that many people in that situation.

From the perspective of a person of working age, full Universal Credit is worth about £73 and full state pension is worth about £179 (sorry, I know those aren't the exact figures).

Human beings are what they are. Somebody receiving UC (most of whom have also worked and contributed) receives less than half of a pensioner and, more often than not, has not paid for a property outright. How do you think they are going to react?

And the 25p a week for over 80s!

How does anyone under 80 manage without that insult

lemongrove

I don’t see anything party political in the subject growstuff
There will be Labour voters on this thread who intend to have
( if at all possible) as much state pension as possible along side their private pensions, and Conservative voters who manage on a small private pension (me) who think the triple lock will have to go for the benefit of all.

But it's the Conservative government in control. I agree with you that it cuts across all political parties, but I still maintain that it's a political move and "buying" votes.

Callistemon

It will probably be the fuel allowance disappearing soon, too.
It will become means tested (which will prove more expensive than just paying it to everyone).

Never trust a Tory.
Actually I would say never trust a politician as Gordon Brown managed to decimate private pensions too.

Ahem! Actually, it's not totally true that Gordon Brown decimated private pensions, but I haven't got the time nor energy at the moment to refute it.

Speaking personally, selfishly, if you like, I'll be well hacked off if the triple lock goes.
At 66 I've only just qualified, finally, for a state pension
(yes, I am in That Cohort of women who understand perfectly that the SPA should have been equalised, just not quite so fàst);
and I'm still trying to work out why I'm not getting the full amount despite having more than enough years in, and never having had time off to have or raise children.
If they whip a bit more off me, I'll be miffed.

Ailidh This has been discussed before, but it's probably because you paid into an occupational pension at some point in your life. If not, contact the Pension Service.

Ahem! Actually, it's not totally true that Gordon Brown decimated private pensions, but I haven't got the time nor energy at the moment to refute it.

Decimate- meaning:

To extract a tax of 10% from something.

Abolishing tax relief made a huge difference to many who had money in private funds, some tiny .
It may have been counter-productive as some people may now have to claim benefit as a result.

Growstuff you are right when you say they would get housing benefit, but that is if they are renting. Those who have there own property will not get it. Some pensioners are also not in a position to downsize either.
The triple lock is a safety net for pensioners and should not go.
Pensioners who have worked, have paid for their pensions, and should not have to live on the bare minimum if they do not have a occupational pension. We have the lowest pensions in Europe.

It must be lovely to be able to say "I don't need it" etc. How very fortunate you are. However, I worked all my life from 16 years old and paid into the system, and I certainly do feel entitled to all these things.

In that case rafichagran they have £179 a week to spend on non-housing costs. As I've lived on far less than that for a few tears, that's perfectly manageable and a lot more than working families have with Universal Credit.

PS. Most people in Europe contribute more to their pensions.

Callistemon

^Ahem! Actually, it's not totally true that Gordon Brown decimated private pensions, but I haven't got the time nor energy at the moment to refute it^.

Decimate- meaning:

To extract a tax of 10% from something.

Abolishing tax relief made a huge difference to many who had money in private funds, some tiny .
It may have been counter-productive as some people may now have to claim benefit as a result.

Sorry, I haven't got time to go into this. At the time, Brown did that to stimulate spending in other areas of the economy. He gambled, which worked in the short term, but has had repercussions. I don't accept that he decimated private pensions.

PS. One of my pensions is a private one. It's not much, but it still pays out more as a percentage compared with what I paid into it than my occupational pensions or the state pension.

growstuff

Ailidh This has been discussed before, but it's probably because you paid into an occupational pension at some point in your life. If not, contact the Pension Service.

You're right, and I will contact them. I keep hanging on until I get into the right headspace (prone to Anxiety when talking to officialdom).

My gripe is that
no-one warned me that my pension was going to be delayed 6 years until it was;
no-one warned me that taking the trouble to pay into a pension scheme would affect my State Pension until it did;
now the SP is going to be unexpectedly eroded
- but I entirely accept that, compared to many people, it's a mild gripe!

Will go and have a hunt for some big girl pants, and ring DWP.....??

lemongrove

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.

Doesn't tax sort out the more for lower incomes and less for those on higher ones?

If I get an increase in my income (pensions) 20% of it disappears straight away.

I agree with your second point, although I suspected it when I read the "small print" of the 2011 changes. I remember mentioning it at the time, but people were on their high horses about the unfairness between the "old" and "new" schemes. Nobody seemed to understand or care about the points I was making.

I'm about the same age as you and have been in receipt of my state pension for a few months (also reduced as a result of occupational pensions). It's made a huge difference to my income and life. If I were totally selfish, I'd fight tooth and nail for the triple lock to be maintained, but it's not that simple.

theworriedwell

lemongrove

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.

Doesn't tax sort out the more for lower incomes and less for those on higher ones?

If I get an increase in my income (pensions) 20% of it disappears straight away.

Yes, it does.

I also got my SP later as I was in that group but I do think the way the transition has been done is fair. I actually get very slightly more than the new pension because for many years I worked but wasn't in a pension scheme. I'm not sure why people who benefitted from tax and NI incentives to get a private pension should get the same pension as those of us who didn't get those benefits.

Infinity2

I think Doodledog’s comments are absolutely spot on.

Thank you so much, Infinity2.

I don't know why my view on this is sometimes seen as reactionary. As growstuff insinuates, I do think that we should all get state pensions, whether or not we also have occupational ones, and whether or not we have savings. Because we have paid for them.

One way of looking at it would be that if state pensions were means tested, why would people pay 12% (or whatever) of their earnings into occupational pensions? What would be the point, if doing so would simply mean that they would be in the same position as if they had spent the money as they earned it? We could all opt out (although the newer schemes have been brought in to ensure that most people now can't) and the government would then have to find enough to pay pension credit to everyone.

Another is to separate individual choice from societal unfairness (which is the perspective from which my own thoughts on this are comes). Some choose to spend and others to save. Savers are, effectively, penalised if they have their savings clawed back by means tests -whether they take the form of reduced pensions, removal of 'perks' such as TV licences or whatever. This is state interference in people's choice about what to do with the money they have earned and paid tax on all their lives. The same applies when people have paid for a house over decades and find that if they hadn't they would get free social care and/or their housing costs paid by the state.

None of this means that those on UC or any other benefits should be forced to live in poverty either. At no point have I suggested that only those who are able to work should qualify for benefits, or that those benefits are nearly enough to afford them a decent standard of living. I just don't see the two things (benefit levels and pensions) as being interdependent. They do not need to be.

What I have said, although it is not relevant to this thread, is that people who choose not to work (eg to be supported by a spouse/partner) should not expect to be entitled to the same as those who do. It seems to me wrong that people can opt out of paying into a system but opt into claiming back, and particularly so when those who have no partner support (eg single parents) have no choice but to work and pay into the system that supports those who have opted out of it.

growstuff asks Human beings are what they are. Somebody receiving UC (most of whom have also worked and contributed) receives less than half of a pensioner and, more often than not, has not paid for a property outright. How do you think they are going to react?

To me, the flaw in this argument is that it is a false equivalence. There is no connection between what someone on UC and a pensioner when it comes to deciding on how much they should get from the treasury. A pensioner who has paid in for the requisite number of years should be recompensed regardless of what happens elsewhere in the system, just as a person on UC should not have their benefits linked to pensions.

IMO, UC is nowhere near high enough, and this was neatly evidenced when furlough was paid at up to £2600 a month, in order to keep workers afloat during lockdown, showing that the government is perfectly aware that UC levels are shamefully low. I believe absolutely that they should rise, and as a matter of urgency. I also believe that all workers should be paid enough to save if they want to, and that everyone should be able to contribute to an occupational pension.

What I don't believe is that the situation surrounding UC and/or low wages is relevant to the fact that pensioners who have paid for both state and occupational pensions should get both. They are separate issues, and it suits the government to pit one set of people against another.

Finally, I think that changing the goalposts so that people are unable to make financial plans is destabilising, both for the economy and society as a whole. People need to be able to spend without fearing that changes in rules will impoverish them, and to save without fearing that their savings will be clawed back.