Suspension of the triple lock

sparkynan

All I know is, when I started out in the early 80's the tax rate on our mortgage was 15% at one stage.. young of today the interest rate is tiny..... At one tme I had 3 jobs to help pay for it.
Now at 62 I have worked hard and have savings..that are making no interest....we own our house outright... yeah but i'm having to work until i'm 66.... you ladies who can mange and are not worried about losing the triple lock.. have been retired and having an easy life since you were 60! In 4 years time, whats going to happen to my state pension??? which I have paid into every year since I left school... I wasn't told that it wouldn't be enough and I needed to take out a private pension as well... which I wouldn't have been able to afford!

I would imagine lots of us weren't able to retire at 60. I was 65 when I got my SRP so got alot less notice than you of the 2nd change. Personally I think there was plenty of notice of the first change but the second one was very short notice for some of us. I don't think it is unreasonable that we get our pension at the same time as men but obviously time to plan for it would have helped.

Back in the early 80s did you know any old people? I was always aware that my grandparents and their generation didn't get a great pension, I thought it was well known.

For those with occupational pensions I'd like to remind you that usually employers contribute to the fund as well as the employee.

Dinahmo

For those with occupational pensions I'd like to remind you that usually employers contribute to the fund as well as the employee.

They do, but that's really not the point. People need to be able to plan for their older age (or any age, really) without constantly having the goalposts shifted. It doesn't matter whether the deal was 'advantageous' our not. Even if the deal had been that employers fully funded people's pensions, and they were entitled to retire on 150% of their earnings - if that is what people were expecting to happen, and had planned their lives accordingly, it would be very unfair to whip it away when they were years ahead of retirement and unable to make good the money. Equalise things, by all means, but slowly, and in such a way that people can make choices and plan as best they can.

Also, many final salary schemes are in public sector roles which have never paid well, and the employer's pension contributions are effectively part of the salary, in the way that cars and other perks can be part of a private sector one.

I'm in the same boat as you, sparkynan. It is infuriating when people suggest that all of our generation are wealthy and entitled, when so many of us have been caught in the 6 year gap, as well as hit by the the 'high interest rates when we were paying mortgages, but low ones when we could finally save' thing.

It's bewildering to me when being annoyed about this is falsely equated with being greedy, or with not wanting a fair pension for everyone, and when so many people seem determined to keep us down by deciding what we can and can't afford.

As you say, the generations before us retired at 60, and got pensions, bus passes, free prescriptions etc whether or not they had paid in. I didn't begrudge that, but I do get annoyed when we are told that we should not expect a state pension, as our contributions have been spent on others, and it would be 'generationally unfair' of us to expect the next generation to pay in for us, or that anyone who has also contributed to an occupational pension should have their state one reduced.

I honestly don't think that expecting to get our pensions, and to be able to keep what we have saved (after being taxed on our income) is a big ask at all. Clearly there are those who disagree, and I would be genuinely interested to know why, and how they would justify a means test. Who knows, I might change my mind.

If taxation were made fairer, and financial corruption were investigated rigorously, the economy would benefit far more than it would by stopping the triple lock, or by squeezing a few more quid out of an already squeezed generation.

The first changes to women's pension were announced in 1995 I think, which gave lots of time for planning. The second changes were a disgrace and some of us were already 59 when they were announced, that really was short notice. Anyone still working has already had 26 years notice of the first change and 10 years notice of the 2nd change, it is evening out.

theworriedwell- Thank you!
I agree that there should be some place where we are taught about how pensions work - I genuinely didn't know there was anything to know, just bogged along paying my taxes, making involuntary pension contributions, and assuming I'd get the full State Pension in due course.

I'm a huge fan of taxation. I keep getting sent memes about how we shouldn't have to pay tax once we're retired. Er, No! I intend to use the systems that taxation funds for a very long time. Well, I hope to, anyway.

theworriedwell

The first changes to women's pension were announced in 1995 I think, which gave lots of time for planning. The second changes were a disgrace and some of us were already 59 when they were announced, that really was short notice. Anyone still working has already had 26 years notice of the first change and 10 years notice of the 2nd change, it is evening out.

It will even out over time, but in the meanwhile, the suggestion that (for example) prescription charges should apply to 60-66 year olds would impact on many people who have already been hit.

Also, not many people are able to pay in enough to cover 6 years of pension in 10 years, and not everyone has had anything like that amount of notice. Again, women who have retired early (by today's standards) will have done so having budgeted on the assumption that prescriptions would be free, so removing that would be another shift of the goalposts.

I don't think I realised until I left work just how vulnerable to shifts in politics you are when you are on a fixed income. Before anyone shouts at me, I know that a lot of working people are in the same boat, but as I keep saying, two wrongs don't make a right, and at least most young people have time ahead of them to plug any gaps.

Doodledog I was 59 when they announced the 2nd changes. I had budgeted so that I could still retire at 60 but suddenly I found myself with a year to fund another 18 months without a pension. So I carried on working. I also still had my youngest at university so it was hard and I understand all too well why the 2nd changes were unfair but the first change although meaning I lost 3 years 6 months pension I did have years to prepare, 18 years in fact.

I also feel the old system wasn't fair to men, they couldn't retire until 65 and then they had a shorter life expectancy so the pension was never as good a deal for men as it was for women.

Personally do I wish I'd got my pension at 60? Yes of course I do but I do realise changes needed to be made, it is a shame they couldn't have equalised it by letting men retire at 60 but I guess there are limits. As it is I'm nearly68 and still working, just the way it worked out.

I'm not saying that the pensions should not have been equalised, just that not everyone knew about the changes until too late, and as you say, the second changes were made too late for anyone affected to do much about it.

If men and women were all able to retire at 60 it would free up jobs for younger people and help the perceived generational inequality, butI don't think that men necessarily had a worse deal. Certainly where I worked for most of my career the gender pay gap was 20%, and early-career women were far less likely to have been able to pay into the pension scheme, as it just wasn't an option for part-timers or those on short-term contracts, who were almost all women.

As men had such a pecuniary advantage they could have (if they'd wanted to) pay AVCs or something so that they could retire at 60. Some of them, at least - I know that not everyone could afford to do this.

When I started work it was becoming illegal to pay women less than men, but this was got around by calling male entrants by a different job title, although they came in with the same qualifications as the female ones (this was civil service) and were on the same grade. The different job titles meant that boys could be encouraged to take day release and go into management, whilst the girls stayed in the lower ranks where the only promotions were to supervisory levels, and there was no comeback.

It was never a level playing field in the first place, so I am not too sorry for the plight of men who insist that 'women only want equality when it suits them'.

Women's life expectancy is between 3 and 4 years longer than men, getting their pension earlier meant they got nearly 9 years more pension than men. With life expectancy that men got a pension for about 13 years and women 22 years on average. That is a massive difference.

I think if we are talking about pensioners who will really feel the loss of the triple lock then we are talking about the sort of people who probably didn't have alot of spare money for AVCs, not to mention I'm not sure why men should have been aware of all these things when women weren't. Do you think women are less able or something? I'm far more on the ball about finance than my husband so I wouldn't agree with you.

I think you might be younger than me, I worked for my early career in local govt rather than civil service but plenty of us women did day release. I left school at 15 but due to day release I ended up with degree level professional qualification, all done on day release with fees, books paid for, paid for day release and additional study leave before exams. I'm surprised the civil service didn't offer the same although my older sister worked in the civil service and certainly got day release and qualifications. Maybe it was just your department.

I left after a couple of years, but there were no such schemes for girls when I was there.

No, I don't think women are less able, and I did say that not all men could have afforded AVCs. It is definitely true, however, that in my last workplace the gender pay gap was over 20% five years or so ago. As I don't think that women are less able, I see that as because men have had the advantage.

You seem unfortunate in your employers. At my last job men and women were paid the same for the same jobs, the top jobs were done by women so the gender pay gap was the other way round. Doing payroll you do know all the facts.

Can I ask when you worked for the Civil Service, my sister is 70 and definitely did benefit from such schemes.

Anyway two wrongs don't make a right, men definitely were the losers with the SRP, I don't think anyone can argue with that.

In 1966 I worked for the Commercial Union and had day release in order to study for the insurance exams. I didn't do much studying and didn't pass the first exams. The day release was open to all. However, the men were certainly paid more than the women doing the same job at that time.

theworriedwell

You seem unfortunate in your employers. At my last job men and women were paid the same for the same jobs, the top jobs were done by women so the gender pay gap was the other way round. Doing payroll you do know all the facts.

Can I ask when you worked for the Civil Service, my sister is 70 and definitely did benefit from such schemes.

Anyway two wrongs don't make a right, men definitely were the losers with the SRP, I don't think anyone can argue with that.

You sound as though you don’t believe me.

I don’t want to say who my employers were on here, but I was in an engineering department of the civil service from 1976-1979, and with my last employer from 1995-2017 in a completely different role.

I’m not sure what your sister’s experience has to do with mine, but I can assure you that I do not tell lies, and that I am still in touch with women who joined the civil service when I did, and they remember things in the same way as me. One of them is married to a man who joined the ‘boys’ stream’ and is still there in a senior capacity, having taken advantage of their training schemes, which women were not encouraged to do.

You are lucky. Here you only get a pension if you have a low income. Some can get a part pension but even that is not easy to get. We get zilch even though we have paid our taxes and worked here most of our lives. We are not rich by any standards but get nothing from the government and have to pay full rates etc, no allowances. Those on the pension are actually better off financially than we are because we are just over the limit for receiving help.

People are forgetting that in 2010 Cameron categorically said the Conservatives would NOT guarantee the triple lock after 2021, I remember it very well as 2021 was when I reached pension age (March actually), people also forget that in 2017 May refused to guarantee it as well, Corbyn did May most certainly did not, in fact I was very very surprised when Boris reversed the decision of his predecessors, in fact I hadn't realised he had until I got a letter telling my pension was going up.

Well we can afford HS2, Royal Yachts, private planes, gold wallpaper, Brexit bill ever soaring, Dido Harding,s billions … but can’t afford decent pensions, school meals, libraries……

Was there a "boys stream" in the civil service. How bizarre. All I can tell you is that day release was common for women in the 70s, I would say on my course the numbers were pretty even and I know my sister would say the same about the Civil Service.

For the staff I managed in the 80s I had more women doing day release than men. Several of the women I signed off for day release achieved high grades in local government.

Doodledog, just noticed the bit about women not being encouraged to take part in the training scheme. I wasn't encouraged, I wanted to do it and applied, I worked hard and got distinction in all my exams so was able to continue. That might be the difference.

theworriedwell

Was there a "boys stream" in the civil service. How bizarre. All I can tell you is that day release was common for women in the 70s, I would say on my course the numbers were pretty even and I know my sister would say the same about the Civil Service.

For the staff I managed in the 80s I had more women doing day release than men. Several of the women I signed off for day release achieved high grades in local government.

As I am sure you know, I did not mean literally that there was a boy's stream. If you were not arguing for arguing's sake you would understand that I was using shorthand for the way in which the boys were given a job title that took them on one trajectory and the girls were put on another, as I said in my first post on the matter, which you have read, as it is that post with which you are arguing.

You may consider it 'bizarre', but we were very young and didn't think much about it, really - it was only later that we understood what impact it would have on our careers, and decades later when the impact of this sort of thing would have on the pensions of women in similar, if not identical circumstances. I had left long before then and changed my career path entirely.

I have never said that day release didn't exist for girls. I outlined my own experience, which, whether you believe it or not, was what I lived. Yes, girls could apply for day release, but to do so would have been swimming against the tide in a way in which would be asking a lot of a 16 year old girl in those days.

There are different 'branches' of the civil service, too, so I'm not sure that your own experience can be extrapolated to include the whole of it. I was in a department that was based on engineering. The people working in the office/department where the men and boys were based (I won't use the convenient shorthand 'boys' stream') were based on a different floor, there was a very sexist culture of sotto voce whistles when girls entered the office, they had girly calendars on the walls, there were many ways in which they were not 'us'. We were 16. New at work, and many of us (me included) were self-conscious and didn't want to stand out.

It was 1976, and we were in a part of the country that was not exactly leading the feminist cause. In most cases our families would not have supported us going against the grain, which going to the engineering college with the boys would have been seen as doing. They did ONC/HNC in engineering. Many of them had taken similar subjects at school whilst we did needlework or cookery. We would have been the only girls in the class, and whilst that would may have phased me as an adult, it did then.

Yes, we could have applied, but it was a different world back then. I can't even think of an equivalent situation that my daughter could have found herself in, as times have changed so much. Social pressure can be intimidating, particularly to young people.

Congratulations on your excellent performance in your exams, and please pass my congratulations to your sister on her own diligence, too.

Many people worked 50 years and paid NI and tax and end up with just a basic pension often topped up to a supposed living standard with pension credit. I don't care about the next generation, I worked years and I want a decent pension, one where I have enough for more than just basics. The NI part for the pensions should have been ring fenced - see how MP's would live on £160 a week. I hope all pensioners in this position vote with their feet

@Veganrock. I was going to say that too but you beat me to it. There is so much money wasted and don't forget the boat people being kept in hotels with 3 meals a day while their asylum is decided. Pensioners are a problem the government wants to go away. Hancock sent many back to care homes knowing they would probably die when he had no Test ready. It is one rule for ordinary workers and another for those with company pensions, so unfair

RVK1CR

Many people worked 50 years and paid NI and tax and end up with just a basic pension often topped up to a supposed living standard with pension credit. I don't care about the next generation, I worked years and I want a decent pension, one where I have enough for more than just basics. The NI part for the pensions should have been ring fenced - see how MP's would live on £160 a week. I hope all pensioners in this position vote with their feet

There is something wrong if someone has paid in for 50 years and gets less than the basic, under the 2016 rules you get the basic or a protected payment which ever is higher if you have paid full stamp I paid NI for the best part of 51 years when I reached pension age in March, under the 2016 rules I had already reached the basic amount level by 6th April 2016 therefore any NI I paid between April 2016 to when I reached retirement age did not increase my pension, however I still get the protected payment, so even though I lost those years and even though I opted out for a few years my state pension is a lot more than the £179, added to that I have a private pension based on the years I opted out of serps/ssp.

It seems to me that some people who are complaining that their state pension is low, are the ones who for whatever reason were unable/did not pay the full stamp when they worked, I realise that some were not able to do so, through no fault of their own which is why the state steps in and offers pension credit which is only a couple of quid a week less than the basic and because its means tested the additional benefits are actually better.

Unlike you I do actually care about the younger generation as they are the ones who are actually paying our pensions, my 51 years were not a pot with my name in it my contributions denote how much I take out of the system but that's all.

There is so much money wasted and don't forget the boat people being kept in hotels with 3 meals a day while their asylum is decided

You have fallen for the nonsense, the handful of asylum seekers existing on £35 a week while their case is decided has nothing to do with your pension. If you want to blame someone, blame the government, blame the MPs who get more per day for lunch allowance than many pensioners get to live on. Punch up, not down.

Doodledog

theworriedwell

Was there a "boys stream" in the civil service. How bizarre. All I can tell you is that day release was common for women in the 70s, I would say on my course the numbers were pretty even and I know my sister would say the same about the Civil Service.

For the staff I managed in the 80s I had more women doing day release than men. Several of the women I signed off for day release achieved high grades in local government.

As I am sure you know, I did not mean literally that there was a boy's stream. If you were not arguing for arguing's sake you would understand that I was using shorthand for the way in which the boys were given a job title that took them on one trajectory and the girls were put on another, as I said in my first post on the matter, which you have read, as it is that post with which you are arguing.

You may consider it 'bizarre', but we were very young and didn't think much about it, really - it was only later that we understood what impact it would have on our careers, and decades later when the impact of this sort of thing would have on the pensions of women in similar, if not identical circumstances. I had left long before then and changed my career path entirely.

I have never said that day release didn't exist for girls. I outlined my own experience, which, whether you believe it or not, was what I lived. Yes, girls could apply for day release, but to do so would have been swimming against the tide in a way in which would be asking a lot of a 16 year old girl in those days.

There are different 'branches' of the civil service, too, so I'm not sure that your own experience can be extrapolated to include the whole of it. I was in a department that was based on engineering. The people working in the office/department where the men and boys were based (I won't use the convenient shorthand 'boys' stream') were based on a different floor, there was a very sexist culture of sotto voce whistles when girls entered the office, they had girly calendars on the walls, there were many ways in which they were not 'us'. We were 16. New at work, and many of us (me included) were self-conscious and didn't want to stand out.

It was 1976, and we were in a part of the country that was not exactly leading the feminist cause. In most cases our families would not have supported us going against the grain, which going to the engineering college with the boys would have been seen as doing. They did ONC/HNC in engineering. Many of them had taken similar subjects at school whilst we did needlework or cookery. We would have been the only girls in the class, and whilst that would may have phased me as an adult, it did then.

Yes, we could have applied, but it was a different world back then. I can't even think of an equivalent situation that my daughter could have found herself in, as times have changed so much. Social pressure can be intimidating, particularly to young people.

Congratulations on your excellent performance in your exams, and please pass my congratulations to your sister on her own diligence, too.

I started work in 1969 so I know well what it was like in the 1970s, nevertheless I was working in a male dominated environment and applied for day release as did many of my colleagues. My manager had to agree to it and my offer was I would do 5 days work in 4 days and he wouldn't lose anything by letting me go.

You didn't do it and it sounds like you regret it.

Your managers let you down, once I became a manager I made sure to encourage all my staff to do day release, sometimes it was a pain as it meant I would be short staffed some days, two members of staff badly let me down by skipping their college days which was awkward as I certainly used a significant proportion of the training budget, and of course it meant staff got other opportunities and moved on but I am proud of what many of my staff achieved.

I'm quite laid back but I hate unfairness and I didn't allow it for me or my staff.

I didn’t regret it then, and I certainly don’t regret it now. I left, went to university and never looked back. I wasn’t let down and I am pleased I left. I did what was right for me at the time, as most of us do.

Now, please stop telling me my motives and doubting what I say. It is tedious, and must be very boring for everyone else.