You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Pension Injustice.

135

Comments

  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    edited May 27
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    FFS. How many times!

    You receive 1 payment. In relation to 2 separate pension schemes.

    1. In relation to your Basic State Pension entitlement; and
    2. In relation to payments you made (or, more accurately allowed to be deducted) in relation to what was once called SERPS, and then called the State 2nd Pension

    There is no limit as to how many pensions you can have. But you only have 1 Basic State Pension. All the others, whether SERPS or Private Pensions, are separate schemes to your basic state pension.

    The clue is in the name. Or do you believe something called a "State 2nd Pension" is not a 2nd Pension?

    All I have been saying. For months. But feels like years. Is that no Govt is likely to allow the Basic State Pension to attract Tax but, in some way or another will fall within a zero tax band. In other words, while it has always been taxable, no tax is paid on it. And that Additional Pensions will not be afforded that luxury. And that people who have 2nd Pensions may fall into tax bands where they actually pay tax.

    That has always happened. True to say that a Pensioner receiving £12,500 a year is treated for tax purposes like a Worker who earns £12,500 a year. Or £50,000 a year. I don't understand why Pensioners think that they shouldn't pay their fair share. Although I agree that freezing pay bands may be equally unfair on both.

    You print an article that says, in relation to Pensioners who are paying tax, that-

    "All of these people are getting a substantial Serps pension."

    The article was trying to explain things for people who don't understand.

    Like you.

    You put lots of stuff on this forum. Lots of informative stuff. Lots of interesting stuff. And, occasionally, stuff that is wrong. I'm sure we all do. What we do not do is spend 3 million hours trying to prove that Black is White afterwards.

    Which is why far fewer people read your posts than should read your posts.

    Which is a shame.

    The State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS), originally known as the State Earnings Related Pension Supplement, was a UK Government pension arrangement, to which employees and employers contributed between 6 April 1978 and 5 April 2002, when it was replaced by the State Second Pension.

    Employees who paid full Class 1 National insurance contribution between 1978 and 2002 earned a SERPS pension. Members of occupational pension schemes could be "contracted out" of SERPS by their employer, in which case they and the employer would pay reduced NI contributions, and they would earn virtually no SERPS pension.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Earnings-Related_Pension_Scheme

    Well I might have the full set.
    Although I did contribute to my employers scheme from August 2014.
    I just havent a clue.
    I havent made a conscious decision to go along with any of them.
    I dont know what the cost of not opting out might be.
    Or if I had the opportunity.
    I do know I have benefitted by around £15 per week.
    Although this will be diluted when I start paying tax on it.
    I havent a clue what the cost was.

    I stand by my argument that freezing the personal allowance has undermined the purpose of the triple lock.
    I am sure that there are many people like me, who had no expectation of paying tax on their state pension, that already are.
    Freezing the personal allowance has also diluted my additional income.
    Instead of reducing NI contributions the government could have chosen to increase the personal allowance, and or reduce the basic rate of tax, benefitting everyone.

    I was quite clear about the benefits and obligations of my personal pension, when I took it out.
    This is obviously not the case when it comes to my state pension
    Loads of people were advised to contract out of SERPS back in the day. Nearly all of them were misadvised and would have been much better off if they had never left. Although quite a few managed to get their SERPS money back. The old SERPS scheme is 1 of many things that were rather more helpful to people our age than younger people. The only people who didn't tend to benefit from SERPS were the people in the (even better) Final Salary Schemes, which mostly were entitled to opt out of SERPS.

    Most people didn't understand SERPS. Which is why the name was changed. But most people still didn't understand. And don't today.

    A lot of people share your opinion about the Triple Lock. I do not. Simply because the "triple" is the State Pension goes up each year by the highest of inflation/average wages/2.5%. Never paying tax on pensions (plural) would likely bankrupt the country tomorrow-although your arguments relating to the freezing of the maximum zero rate band are rather stronger.

    You don't pay tax on your "state pension"-you pay it on your state 2nd Pension/SERPS. But we've been there.

    Freezing the personal allowance affects everyone on that same income. Quite why Pensioners feel that they shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else is something I have never quite got. Particularly when no pension (State or otherwise) is means-tested.

    Yes, it is entirely true that the Govt could have chosen to increase personal allowances and/or reduce income tax, rather than NI. Whole host of reasons for that. 1 of which is it costs a lot less to reduce NI, simply because it primarily benefits workers-and sounds like it is as generous as a cut in Tax. But I also believe that Workers need more help than Pensioners right now. And I think I can have a balanced view on that-simply because I am no longer a Worker. But that certainly doesn't make me right.

    The various Pension pressure groups are overplaying their hand. Trying to ensure that Pensioners, all Pensioners whether rich or poor, don't pay any share of the imminent Pension problems.

    I think steps should be taken to ensure that no-one pays tax on their Basic State Pension. Ever. I think that is achievable. But asking for too much can result in not getting that-or State Pensions becoming means-tested.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    FFS. How many times!

    You receive 1 payment. In relation to 2 separate pension schemes.

    1. In relation to your Basic State Pension entitlement; and
    2. In relation to payments you made (or, more accurately allowed to be deducted) in relation to what was once called SERPS, and then called the State 2nd Pension

    There is no limit as to how many pensions you can have. But you only have 1 Basic State Pension. All the others, whether SERPS or Private Pensions, are separate schemes to your basic state pension.

    The clue is in the name. Or do you believe something called a "State 2nd Pension" is not a 2nd Pension?

    All I have been saying. For months. But feels like years. Is that no Govt is likely to allow the Basic State Pension to attract Tax but, in some way or another will fall within a zero tax band. In other words, while it has always been taxable, no tax is paid on it. And that Additional Pensions will not be afforded that luxury. And that people who have 2nd Pensions may fall into tax bands where they actually pay tax.

    That has always happened. True to say that a Pensioner receiving £12,500 a year is treated for tax purposes like a Worker who earns £12,500 a year. Or £50,000 a year. I don't understand why Pensioners think that they shouldn't pay their fair share. Although I agree that freezing pay bands may be equally unfair on both.

    You print an article that says, in relation to Pensioners who are paying tax, that-

    "All of these people are getting a substantial Serps pension."

    The article was trying to explain things for people who don't understand.

    Like you.

    You put lots of stuff on this forum. Lots of informative stuff. Lots of interesting stuff. And, occasionally, stuff that is wrong. I'm sure we all do. What we do not do is spend 3 million hours trying to prove that Black is White afterwards.

    Which is why far fewer people read your posts than should read your posts.

    Which is a shame.

    The State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS), originally known as the State Earnings Related Pension Supplement, was a UK Government pension arrangement, to which employees and employers contributed between 6 April 1978 and 5 April 2002, when it was replaced by the State Second Pension.

    Employees who paid full Class 1 National insurance contribution between 1978 and 2002 earned a SERPS pension. Members of occupational pension schemes could be "contracted out" of SERPS by their employer, in which case they and the employer would pay reduced NI contributions, and they would earn virtually no SERPS pension.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Earnings-Related_Pension_Scheme

    Well I might have the full set.
    Although I did contribute to my employers scheme from August 2014.
    I just havent a clue.
    I havent made a conscious decision to go along with any of them.
    I dont know what the cost of not opting out might be.
    Or if I had the opportunity.
    I do know I have benefitted by around £15 per week.
    Although this will be diluted when I start paying tax on it.
    I havent a clue what the cost was.

    I stand by my argument that freezing the personal allowance has undermined the purpose of the triple lock.
    I am sure that there are many people like me, who had no expectation of paying tax on their state pension, that already are.
    Freezing the personal allowance has also diluted my additional income.
    Instead of reducing NI contributions the government could have chosen to increase the personal allowance, and or reduce the basic rate of tax, benefitting everyone.

    I was quite clear about the benefits and obligations of my personal pension, when I took it out.
    This is obviously not the case when it comes to my state pension
    Loads of people were advised to contract out of SERPS back in the day. Nearly all of them were misadvised and would have been much better off if they had never left. Although quite a few managed to get their SERPS money back. The old SERPS scheme is 1 of many things that were rather more helpful to people our age than younger people. The only people who didn't tend to benefit from SERPS were the people in the (even better) Final Salary Schemes, which mostly were entitled to opt out of SERPS.

    I was self employed from 1979 until 2001 or 2002.
    My wife used to buy my stamps in the post office.
    I am not sure if they gave her any advice.


    Most people didn't understand SERPS. Which is why the name was changed. But most people still didn't understand. And don't today.

    Include me.

    A lot of people share your opinion about the Triple Lock. I do not. Simply because the "triple" is the State Pension goes up each year by the highest of inflation/average wages/2.5%. Never paying tax on pensions (plural) would likely bankrupt the country tomorrow-although your arguments relating to the freezing of the maximum zero rate band are rather stronger.

    I have said enough on this.
    I will not change my mind on the pointless aspect of a good increase in conjuction with more tax.


    You don't pay tax on your "state pension"-you pay it on your state 2nd Pension/SERPS. But we've been there.

    From an uneducated point of view, my intention was to buy my stamps in order to qualify for the state pension.
    I was never aware of the option to pay extra, if there was one.
    Or what the return on these extra payments might mean.
    I was never aware there was a choice, if there was one.
    I was of the opinion that the state pension that I receive is a result of paying for my stamps, and that there was one, rather than two.


    Freezing the personal allowance affects everyone on that same income. Quite why Pensioners feel that they shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else is something I have never quite got. Particularly when no pension (State or otherwise) is means-tested.

    That is obvious.
    Go back to when the personal allowance was frozen.
    The state pension was nowhere near the threshold.


    Yes, it is entirely true that the Govt could have chosen to increase personal allowances and/or reduce income tax, rather than NI. Whole host of reasons for that. 1 of which is it costs a lot less to reduce NI, simply because it primarily benefits workers-and sounds like it is as generous as a cut in Tax. But I also believe that Workers need more help than Pensioners right now. And I think I can have a balanced view on that-simply because I am no longer a Worker. But that certainly doesn't make me right.

    The cost will depend on how much you increased the threshold by, or by how much you reduced the basic rate.
    It seems to defy logic by pointing out that the state pension scheme is in trouble, and reducing NI contributions, with the ambition of doing away with them.



    The various Pension pressure groups are overplaying their hand. Trying to ensure that Pensioners, all Pensioners whether rich or poor, don't pay any share of the imminent Pension problems.

    I dont have a clue.
    I am happy to pay income tax on my additional income.
    That is just as well, as there is no choice.


    I think steps should be taken to ensure that no-one pays tax on their Basic State Pension. Ever. I think that is achievable. But asking for too much can result in not getting that-or State Pensions becoming means-tested.
    I was not arguing about pensioners being a special case.
    Everyone should pay their fair share.
    The state should applaud people for making their own retirement arrangements.
    They should not set out to make them worse off than they were.
    Every worker has benefitted from the reduction in NI contributions.
    Except pensioners that work, and most pensioners will have also lost out on the threshold being frozen.


  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    Lots of this goes over old ground. And part of me says we are never going to change one another's mind.

    The only things I would say are this.

    1. "The state...should not set out to make them worse than they were before". That needs some context. People are not in 1 sense "worse off" than before. In that a decreasing majority of Pensioners pay no tax, a substantially increasing minority of Pensioners are being taxed at Basic Rate, and a small (but increasing) minority of Pensioners are paying tax at the Higher Rate. However, that is only taxing a percentage of a gain. But in another sense, they are "worse off". In the sense that Pensioners as a group are paying increasing amounts of Tax on their Pensions. Just like every Worker is paying an increased amount of tax on their Income. And-if 1 group pays less-that can only be done if another group pays more

    2. I believe that the treatment of Pensioners, in terms of payment, taxation and means-testing, is going to get way worse than it is now. Particularly for people with Private Pensions worth a lot of money. In the 2030s. In the 2040s. And in the 2050s.

    3. I know I have said it before. But I am going to say it again. Future generations of Pensioners will look at today as the "Golden Age" for Pensioners. I'm not saying everything is fair. Far from it. Just that things are going to get a whole lot more unfair. Simply because finances dictate that is going to happen. Not just for you. Or me. Everyone.

    4. The taxpayer is paying a massive amount for Pensions. Not just for the Old Age Pension, which is an eyewatering amount. For the State-sponsored Final Salary Pension schemes for the Police, Civil Service etc. Which the biggest companies in the UK could no longer afford, and scrapped. While the taxpayer still pays £Billions to subsidise
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 169,530


    And then along came Triple Lock Plus.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    Tikay10 said:



    And then along came Triple Lock Plus.

    Actually, it is rather clever.

    Leaving to 1 side that it is easy to promise stuff when you don't have to be the 1 to deliver.

    I mentioned before that any Govt could not afford to be the first Govt to have a Basic State Pension that attracted Tax. And, unless some form of action were to be taken, in about 3 years time Basic Pensions would be attracting tax.

    This is just kicking the can down the road. Without doing anything to deal with the Pension funding crisis. Which gets progressively worse each year we do nothing.

    If the Triple Lock is to continue, then this measure creating Triple Lock Plus is inevitable. Because the alternatives in practical terms would be to raise the zero rate allowance for everyone. Or just Pensioners.

    This is just feeding the elephant in the room. I fear Labour will enact this exact scheme at some point.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    edited May 28
    People treat the "Triple Lock" as though it has always existed. Not true. Just since 2011.

    We did not have any state Pension in the sense we understand it today until 1909.
    It was only in 1948 that what we understand as the universal Pension began.
    From 1948-1980 Pensions normally rose in line with Wages
    From 1980-2011 Pensions normally rose in line with Prices.
    From 2011 onwards Pensions have had a Triple Lock

    I get that a Pensioner on, say, £12,500 a year objects to paying any income tax.

    I get why 2 married Pensioners in a combined income of, say, £25,000 a year objects to paying any income tax-although I am starting to struggle

    Now. Who believes 2 married Pensioners with combined Income of £150,000 a year needs another Pension tax break?

    Paid for by people with incomes that are taxed more harshly. Who have kids. Mortgages. Debts. Typically, more outgoings than Pensioners. On a lower slice of income not taxed. and one that is already at record levels.

    Looking at how they may never be able to afford to retire. And a Retirement Age that continues to rise.

  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    edited May 28
    To be a little more precise:-

    The richest 50% of Pensioners will get a tax break. The poorest 50% will not.
    People who are not Pensioners will have to pay for it.

    If it was, say, the poorest 70% of Pensioners will get a tax break, then I would be on board. Because there are poor pensioners. And people-like you- who are the squeezed middle

    But it's not.

    Suppose there are 24 million people who work and pay tax. That's an extra £100 each. Every year. And that figure will go up. By the amount of triple lock plus. Unlike Workers. Who do not have that luxury.

    From all workers across the board. To just the better-off pensioners.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
    Essexphil said:

    To be a little more precise:-

    The richest 50% of Pensioners will get a tax break. The poorest 50% will not.
    People who are not Pensioners will have to pay for it.

    If it was, say, the poorest 70% of Pensioners will get a tax break, then I would be on board. Because there are poor pensioners. And people-like you- who are the squeezed middle

    But it's not.

    Suppose there are 24 million people who work and pay tax. That's an extra £100 each. Every year. And that figure will go up. By the amount of triple lock plus. Unlike Workers. Who do not have that luxury.

    From all workers across the board. To just the better-off pensioners.

    The freezing of the tax threshold clearly affects pensioners, and those that earn the least, and therefore those that can least afford to start paying tax, or pay more tax.
    The triple lock plus will ensure that pensioners will be less affected, but it wont help the low earners.

    I agree with your earlier comment about a couple getting 25k tax free, is nothing to be sniffed at.
    Although a single pensioner currently getting just over 11k is likely to be finding things quite a bit more difficult.
    This will be dependant upon where they live, rent or mortgage, and debts etc.
    I dont have a clue about how many single pensioners there are, or how many couples there are where both qualify for the maximum.
    In my own case, I get 12k, and my wife gets 6.5k.
    I dont think I could survive very well if I was on my own, and reliant solely on the state pension.

    The triple lock plus seems like an afterthought.

    I just dont get the doing away with NI contributions plan, as they will have to get the money off us, and more, in other taxes.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    To be a little more precise:-

    The richest 50% of Pensioners will get a tax break. The poorest 50% will not.
    People who are not Pensioners will have to pay for it.

    If it was, say, the poorest 70% of Pensioners will get a tax break, then I would be on board. Because there are poor pensioners. And people-like you- who are the squeezed middle

    But it's not.

    Suppose there are 24 million people who work and pay tax. That's an extra £100 each. Every year. And that figure will go up. By the amount of triple lock plus. Unlike Workers. Who do not have that luxury.

    From all workers across the board. To just the better-off pensioners.

    The freezing of the tax threshold clearly affects pensioners, and those that earn the least, and therefore those that can least afford to start paying tax, or pay more tax.
    The triple lock plus will ensure that pensioners will be less affected, but it wont help the low earners.

    I agree with your earlier comment about a couple getting 25k tax free, is nothing to be sniffed at.
    Although a single pensioner currently getting just over 11k is likely to be finding things quite a bit more difficult.
    This will be dependant upon where they live, rent or mortgage, and debts etc.
    I dont have a clue about how many single pensioners there are, or how many couples there are where both qualify for the maximum.
    In my own case, I get 12k, and my wife gets 6.5k.
    I dont think I could survive very well if I was on my own, and reliant solely on the state pension.

    The triple lock plus seems like an afterthought.

    I just dont get the doing away with NI contributions plan, as they will have to get the money off us, and more, in other taxes.
    I must be more cynical than you.

    Taxes-or more accurately, changes to taxes fall into 3 main categories:-

    1. Changes brought about to raise money, and effect change
    2. Window dressing, designed primarily to give an impression you are (for example) giving people more than you really are and
    3. Things you promise in order to hamstring the next Govt, as opposed to intending it to adversely affect the current one

    There have always neem plenty of tax "cuts" falling into category 2. Every Govt-not just this 1. The cut to NI was a prime example of this

    But this Govt seems intent, in a way that no previous Govt ever has, of forcing the Tax agenda of the next Govt. Not just this Triple Lock plus one (which is IMO evil genius). All manner of "commitments" to take us to 2030 and beyond. By a Govt that never seemed to set any targets in relation to its own performance. Except net migration. And we all know how well that turned out.

    It's 1 thing the Greens promising us a free unicorn. Or Reform promising a return to 1960. They know they will never have to deliver. But the current political cynicism is a new development.

    Traditional Conservative attacks on Labour tend to centre on some sort of bogeyman figure. Whereas what is Starmer's worst characteristic? That he is as dull as Sunak?

    I believe Labour are fighting to win the Election.
    The Tories are looking towards an acceptable loss this time, and are fighting the 2029 election. By setting the economic agenda for when they are in opposition
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    To be a little more precise:-

    The richest 50% of Pensioners will get a tax break. The poorest 50% will not.
    People who are not Pensioners will have to pay for it.

    If it was, say, the poorest 70% of Pensioners will get a tax break, then I would be on board. Because there are poor pensioners. And people-like you- who are the squeezed middle

    But it's not.

    Suppose there are 24 million people who work and pay tax. That's an extra £100 each. Every year. And that figure will go up. By the amount of triple lock plus. Unlike Workers. Who do not have that luxury.

    From all workers across the board. To just the better-off pensioners.

    The freezing of the tax threshold clearly affects pensioners, and those that earn the least, and therefore those that can least afford to start paying tax, or pay more tax.
    The triple lock plus will ensure that pensioners will be less affected, but it wont help the low earners.

    I agree with your earlier comment about a couple getting 25k tax free, is nothing to be sniffed at.
    Although a single pensioner currently getting just over 11k is likely to be finding things quite a bit more difficult.
    This will be dependant upon where they live, rent or mortgage, and debts etc.
    I dont have a clue about how many single pensioners there are, or how many couples there are where both qualify for the maximum.
    In my own case, I get 12k, and my wife gets 6.5k.
    I dont think I could survive very well if I was on my own, and reliant solely on the state pension.

    The triple lock plus seems like an afterthought.

    I just dont get the doing away with NI contributions plan, as they will have to get the money off us, and more, in other taxes.
    I must be more cynical than you.

    Taxes-or more accurately, changes to taxes fall into 3 main categories:-

    1. Changes brought about to raise money, and effect change
    2. Window dressing, designed primarily to give an impression you are (for example) giving people more than you really are and
    3. Things you promise in order to hamstring the next Govt, as opposed to intending it to adversely affect the current one

    There have always neem plenty of tax "cuts" falling into category 2. Every Govt-not just this 1. The cut to NI was a prime example of this

    But this Govt seems intent, in a way that no previous Govt ever has, of forcing the Tax agenda of the next Govt. Not just this Triple Lock plus one (which is IMO evil genius). All manner of "commitments" to take us to 2030 and beyond. By a Govt that never seemed to set any targets in relation to its own performance. Except net migration. And we all know how well that turned out.

    It's 1 thing the Greens promising us a free unicorn. Or Reform promising a return to 1960. They know they will never have to deliver. But the current political cynicism is a new development.

    Traditional Conservative attacks on Labour tend to centre on some sort of bogeyman figure. Whereas what is Starmer's worst characteristic? That he is as dull as Sunak?

    I believe Labour are fighting to win the Election.
    The Tories are looking towards an acceptable loss this time, and are fighting the 2029 election. By setting the economic agenda for when they are in opposition
    I guess I will have to try to be more cynical.
    I was basing that statement on logic.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    To be a little more precise:-

    The richest 50% of Pensioners will get a tax break. The poorest 50% will not.
    People who are not Pensioners will have to pay for it.

    If it was, say, the poorest 70% of Pensioners will get a tax break, then I would be on board. Because there are poor pensioners. And people-like you- who are the squeezed middle

    But it's not.

    Suppose there are 24 million people who work and pay tax. That's an extra £100 each. Every year. And that figure will go up. By the amount of triple lock plus. Unlike Workers. Who do not have that luxury.

    From all workers across the board. To just the better-off pensioners.

    The freezing of the tax threshold clearly affects pensioners, and those that earn the least, and therefore those that can least afford to start paying tax, or pay more tax.
    The triple lock plus will ensure that pensioners will be less affected, but it wont help the low earners.

    I agree with your earlier comment about a couple getting 25k tax free, is nothing to be sniffed at.
    Although a single pensioner currently getting just over 11k is likely to be finding things quite a bit more difficult.
    This will be dependant upon where they live, rent or mortgage, and debts etc.
    I dont have a clue about how many single pensioners there are, or how many couples there are where both qualify for the maximum.
    In my own case, I get 12k, and my wife gets 6.5k.
    I dont think I could survive very well if I was on my own, and reliant solely on the state pension.

    The triple lock plus seems like an afterthought.

    I just dont get the doing away with NI contributions plan, as they will have to get the money off us, and more, in other taxes.
    I must be more cynical than you.

    Taxes-or more accurately, changes to taxes fall into 3 main categories:-

    1. Changes brought about to raise money, and effect change
    2. Window dressing, designed primarily to give an impression you are (for example) giving people more than you really are and
    3. Things you promise in order to hamstring the next Govt, as opposed to intending it to adversely affect the current one

    There have always neem plenty of tax "cuts" falling into category 2. Every Govt-not just this 1. The cut to NI was a prime example of this

    But this Govt seems intent, in a way that no previous Govt ever has, of forcing the Tax agenda of the next Govt. Not just this Triple Lock plus one (which is IMO evil genius). All manner of "commitments" to take us to 2030 and beyond. By a Govt that never seemed to set any targets in relation to its own performance. Except net migration. And we all know how well that turned out.

    It's 1 thing the Greens promising us a free unicorn. Or Reform promising a return to 1960. They know they will never have to deliver. But the current political cynicism is a new development.

    Traditional Conservative attacks on Labour tend to centre on some sort of bogeyman figure. Whereas what is Starmer's worst characteristic? That he is as dull as Sunak?

    I believe Labour are fighting to win the Election.
    The Tories are looking towards an acceptable loss this time, and are fighting the 2029 election. By setting the economic agenda for when they are in opposition
    I guess I will have to try to be more cynical.
    I was basing that statement on logic.
    1 man's logic is another man's naivety.
  • madprofmadprof Member Posts: 3,458
    My only (serious) comment as a recent recipient of the state pension?

    We have to scrap the triple lock and I for one would ( readily) accept an annual review based on average pay increases, rather than inflation or any other variable

    However, if I genuinely had to live on £880 pm ...couldn't survive on that!- then it gets complicated with pension credits, god know what other benefits that are linked to only receiving this basic monthly amount so

    Whilst we pay one of the lowest state pensions, really do we when other accessible payments are added?

    I'm fortunate to also have a private pension( taxed of course!) which (rightly) negates any access to financial support...


    Out of interest, within the article, there was a poll....I voted scrap: 10% v 85% to keep so can't see much changing
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
    madprof said:

    My only (serious) comment as a recent recipient of the state pension?

    We have to scrap the triple lock and I for one would ( readily) accept an annual review based on average pay increases, rather than inflation or any other variable

    However, if I genuinely had to live on £880 pm ...couldn't survive on that!- then it gets complicated with pension credits, god know what other benefits that are linked to only receiving this basic monthly amount so

    Whilst we pay one of the lowest state pensions, really do we when other accessible payments are added?

    I'm fortunate to also have a private pension( taxed of course!) which (rightly) negates any access to financial support...


    Out of interest, within the article, there was a poll....I voted scrap: 10% v 85% to keep so can't see much changing

    I would disagree, and the facts dont support your argument.
    The last 2 years triple lock increases distort the picture, the previous eight show a much more realistic picture.
    Inflation has gone mad in the last 2 years.
    Average increases in pension have been lower than average wage increases over the last 10 years.
    The triple lock was introduced in 2010.



    Percentage pension increases.

    2024-8.5%
    2023-10.1%
    2022-3.1%
    2021-2.5%
    2020-3.9%
    2019-2.6%
    2018-3.0%
    2017-2.5%
    2016-2.5%
    2015-2.5%

    So the average increase over the last 10 years which includes the big increases over the last 2 years is 4.1%.
    If you take the previous 8 years it was only 2.83% per year.

    So maybe the last 2 have caught up a little on the previous 8.


    Average wage increases.

    2024-6.4%
    2023-5%
    2022-3%
    2021-5.3%
    2020-6.4%
    2019-3.8%
    2018-3.5%
    2017-6.4%
    2016-2.3%
    2015-3.9%

    So in comparison the average increase over the 10 years was 4.6%.
    The average over the first 8 was 4.33%.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    Whose "facts" exactly?

    The Triple lock contains precise dates for the calculations.

    Either your statistics are just using whatever date best supports someone's argument, as opposed to the actual date.

    Or the Govt has been lying all along. And no political Party, or its advisers, are as clever as you.

    At the very time people could make political capital out of it.

    Would you mind awfully if I suggested the smart money is not on you?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
    Essexphil said:

    Whose "facts" exactly?

    The Triple lock contains precise dates for the calculations.

    Either your statistics are just using whatever date best supports someone's argument, as opposed to the actual date.

    Or the Govt has been lying all along. And no political Party, or its advisers, are as clever as you.

    At the very time people could make political capital out of it.

    Would you mind awfully if I suggested the smart money is not on you?

    Are you saying the figures are wrong?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
    Essexphil said:

    Whose "facts" exactly?

    The Triple lock contains precise dates for the calculations.

    Either your statistics are just using whatever date best supports someone's argument, as opposed to the actual date.

    Or the Govt has been lying all along. And no political Party, or its advisers, are as clever as you.

    At the very time people could make political capital out of it.

    Would you mind awfully if I suggested the smart money is not on you?

    The same facts.
    Except there seems to be one slight discrepancy compared to the last place I got them from, which is this site says the 2016 increase was 2.9% not 2.5%.

    How much has the State Pension gone up by?

    https://restless.co.uk/pensions-retirement-planning/state-pension/how-much-has-the-state-pension-gone-up-by/
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,767
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    Whose "facts" exactly?

    The Triple lock contains precise dates for the calculations.

    Either your statistics are just using whatever date best supports someone's argument, as opposed to the actual date.

    Or the Govt has been lying all along. And no political Party, or its advisers, are as clever as you.

    At the very time people could make political capital out of it.

    Would you mind awfully if I suggested the smart money is not on you?

    Are you saying the figures are wrong?
    Depends what you mean by "wrong". Are those figures wrong? No idea.
    Are those figures wrong if you believe they are accurate figures for the calculation of the Triple Lock? Of course they are wrong. That wouldn't fool a moron in a hurry.

    Try reading that article. You know, the one you quoted from the restless website. Because it makes it perfectly clear.

    For any year from April, the Triple Lock is applied from the figures of the previous September. So, for example, the figures for September 2023 are used to calculate the Triple Lock for the period April 2024 to March 2025.

    The article then goes on to explain which of the 3 yardsticks gives the highest figure at the relevant time. Together with what that figure is. For every relevant year.

    And the figures that are quoted, and applied, are totally different to the "facts" you-and absolutely no one else-are quoting.

    So. Your average wage rises are all giving the wrong figures. Because they relate to the wrong years. The triple lock uses the preceding September for the calculations. Not 1 year for inflation and a different year for wages.

    Worse than that, your figures clearly do not relate to the relevant September. Either in that year. Or the 1 after it. As your supposed wage figures are too high for either that year or the 1 after it in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. And too low for the figure applied using wages for 2024/25

    By all means print stuff that you do not understand. But please listen when people try and explain it.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 35,819
    Essexphil said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    Whose "facts" exactly?

    The Triple lock contains precise dates for the calculations.

    Either your statistics are just using whatever date best supports someone's argument, as opposed to the actual date.

    Or the Govt has been lying all along. And no political Party, or its advisers, are as clever as you.

    At the very time people could make political capital out of it.

    Would you mind awfully if I suggested the smart money is not on you?

    Are you saying the figures are wrong?
    Depends what you mean by "wrong". Are those figures wrong? No idea.
    Are those figures wrong if you believe they are accurate figures for the calculation of the Triple Lock? Of course they are wrong. That wouldn't fool a moron in a hurry.

    Try reading that article. You know, the one you quoted from the restless website. Because it makes it perfectly clear.

    For any year from April, the Triple Lock is applied from the figures of the previous September. So, for example, the figures for September 2023 are used to calculate the Triple Lock for the period April 2024 to March 2025.

    The article then goes on to explain which of the 3 yardsticks gives the highest figure at the relevant time. Together with what that figure is. For every relevant year.

    And the figures that are quoted, and applied, are totally different to the "facts" you-and absolutely no one else-are quoting.

    So. Your average wage rises are all giving the wrong figures. Because they relate to the wrong years. The triple lock uses the preceding September for the calculations. Not 1 year for inflation and a different year for wages.

    Worse than that, your figures clearly do not relate to the relevant September. Either in that year. Or the 1 after it. As your supposed wage figures are too high for either that year or the 1 after it in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. And too low for the figure applied using wages for 2024/25

    By all means print stuff that you do not understand. But please listen when people try and explain it.
    So you are saying these are incorrect?

    2015/16 Minimum increase (2.5%)

    2016/17 Earnings (2.9%)

    2017/18 Minimum increase (2.5%)

    2018/19 CPI (3%)

    2019/20 Earnings (2.6%)

    2020/21 Earnings (3.9%)

    2021/22 Minimum increase (2.5%)

    2022/23 Triple lock suspended – CPI (3.1%)

    2023/24 CPI (10.1%)

    2024/25 Earnings (8.5%)

Sign In or Register to comment.