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%)
FFS. No.
I am saying they are totally different figures to the other ones you quoted.
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%)
FFS. No.
I am saying they are totally different figures to the other ones you quoted.
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%)
FFS. No.
I am saying they are totally different figures to the other ones you quoted.
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%)
FFS. No.
I am saying they are totally different figures to the other ones you quoted.
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%)
FFS. No.
I am saying they are totally different figures to the other ones you quoted.
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%)
FFS. No.
I am saying they are totally different figures to the other ones you quoted.
If that were true, the last 3 Prime Ministers would be in Prison
Approximately 6.4% The average wage increase in the UK for 2024 is approximately 6.4%, according to the latest ONS data1. This translates to a median monthly earnings of £2,334 or an annual salary of £28,000 before tax. The growth in wages is running higher than the rate of inflation2.
5% The overall average salary increase in the UK is forecast to rise to 5% in 20231. Average weekly earnings including bonuses increased 5.8% year-on-year to GBP 669/week in the three months to December 20232. Additionally, the UK government has increased the National Living Wage by 9.7% from £9.50 per hour to £10.42 as of April 20233.
Around 3% The average salary increase in the UK for 2022 is predicted to be around 3%, which translates to a 0.4% pay rise when accounting for cost of living adjustments and inflation1. The private sector is experiencing larger increases at 6.2%, while the public sector lags behind at 2.2% due to funding constraints2.
Median Weekly Earnings (April 2021): Across all jobs, median weekly earnings in April 2021 increased by 5.3% from the previous year (on a nominal basis). When adjusted for inflation, they increased by 3.6% in real terms2.
Here are the figures that I looked up. I am not bothered about them. You were. I was more concerned about making the point that even with the triple lock in place the increases to the state pension could hardly be described as excessive over the period it has been in place. Although nobody could argue that the increases over the last 2 years have been high. The average increase in the 13 years the triple lock has been in place averages 4%.
You keep using non-relevant figures. At the wrong time. For the wrong year.
The worst figure you have given relates to "median" wage inflation. An awful comparator. So-for example-scrapping or reinstating Bankers bonuses is irrelevant to Mr Median man. Putting Minimum Wage up by 10% or freezing it is similarly irrelevant to Mr Median. Unlike Mr Mean.
The most interesting figure you have given is the 1 that includes workers' bonuses. Wrong time, wrong year-but bonuses is quite a hot topic in this. Because they are being used for workers-and ignored for Pensioners and State Benefits
I appreciate that you have no idea in relation to the actual workings of these things. Simply because you do not understand macro-economics or econometrics. Most people do not.
It has been an interest of mine for many years. And I am not an expert-but I needed to understand this sort of thing to be good at various parts of my job. So-here is how Wages work in the Real World. When a professional is advising Big Business.
1. There are times when there are massive changes, and it is impossible to predict what may happen in the next year or 2. The workers have Short-Term needs. And Big Business does not want to commit to wage rises for ever more. The result? You look to give some sort of Bonus. As little as you can get away with without Workers leaving. Without committing the Company to long-term payments
2. Then there are times when inflation may be likely either to go up a lot. Or down a lot. And people like me used to know a lot more than the average underfunded Trade Union. So-guess who got offered a seemingly-generous, market-leading 3 year deal in the former, and a 1-year deal in the latter?
So-how does this apply to the Triple Lock?
The Triple Lock started in 2011. After about 15-20 years of economic stability. Where inflation was pretty low, and pretty constant. Same for Wages. Unlike (say) the 25-30 years before that, where inflation and wages varied wildly.
And-provided that had continued, the Triple Lock was a largely affordable "perk" to Pensioners. And that remained true until late 2020. When the World changed.
In late 2020, fuel prices spiked massively. Suddenly. Catching everyone unawares-even the Energy Suppliers. So in the Tax Year 2020/21, massive Govt support was given. Some of it to everyone. Some of it to the Poor. And some of it to Pensioners, whether rich or poor. A Bonus, in Economic Terms. But a Bonus that was designed to be non-contractual. For Workers or Pensioners. And didn't present as a factor in either Wages or Pensions.
Then we move to Tax Year 2021/22. When inflation had already spiked. But not for Workers or Pensions. Because it happened after the cut-off date in 2020 to calculate Pensions. So the Govt had no choice but to continue offering one-off payments like the previous year. Which were funded by the Taxpayer
Then we move to Tax Year 2022/23 and the first part of 2023/4. Inflation had now spiked in a way that allowed Pensions to react. And they went up in line with inflation. Whereas Wages, for the people expected to pay for the Pensions went up far more slowly. Because the Triple Lock reacts more quickly to sudden change than wages
Then in the latter part of 2023/24 and the start of 2024/25. Where inflation is flying down. Not because of anything this Govt has done. Because fuel prices have dropped nearly as dramatically as they rose. And, as a consequence, Wage rises are catching up-and have risen far more quickly than inflation.
The Triple Lock has resulted in Pensioners receiving both the windfalls of a spike in inflation when wage rises were stagnant, and the spike in Wages when they comfortably outstripped Inflation.
Whereas the people expected to fund it-the taxpayer-only got 1 of those 2. Up until 2011, the same was true for Pensioners. Whereas now the people receiving Pensions are treated considerably more favourably than the people paying for it.
You keep using non-relevant figures. At the wrong time. For the wrong year.
The worst figure you have given relates to "median" wage inflation. An awful comparator. So-for example-scrapping or reinstating Bankers bonuses is irrelevant to Mr Median man. Putting Minimum Wage up by 10% or freezing it is similarly irrelevant to Mr Median. Unlike Mr Mean.
The most interesting figure you have given is the 1 that includes workers' bonuses. Wrong time, wrong year-but bonuses is quite a hot topic in this. Because they are being used for workers-and ignored for Pensioners and State Benefits
I appreciate that you have no idea in relation to the actual workings of these things. Simply because you do not understand macro-economics or econometrics. Most people do not.
It has been an interest of mine for many years. And I am not an expert-but I needed to understand this sort of thing to be good at various parts of my job. So-here is how Wages work in the Real World. When a professional is advising Big Business.
1. There are times when there are massive changes, and it is impossible to predict what may happen in the next year or 2. The workers have Short-Term needs. And Big Business does not want to commit to wage rises for ever more. The result? You look to give some sort of Bonus. As little as you can get away with without Workers leaving. Without committing the Company to long-term payments
2. Then there are times when inflation may be likely either to go up a lot. Or down a lot. And people like me used to know a lot more than the average underfunded Trade Union. So-guess who got offered a seemingly-generous, market-leading 3 year deal in the former, and a 1-year deal in the latter?
So-how does this apply to the Triple Lock?
The Triple Lock started in 2011. After about 15-20 years of economic stability. Where inflation was pretty low, and pretty constant. Same for Wages. Unlike (say) the 25-30 years before that, where inflation and wages varied wildly.
And-provided that had continued, the Triple Lock was a largely affordable "perk" to Pensioners. And that remained true until late 2020. When the World changed.
In late 2020, fuel prices spiked massively. Suddenly. Catching everyone unawares-even the Energy Suppliers. So in the Tax Year 2020/21, massive Govt support was given. Some of it to everyone. Some of it to the Poor. And some of it to Pensioners, whether rich or poor. A Bonus, in Economic Terms. But a Bonus that was designed to be non-contractual. For Workers or Pensioners. And didn't present as a factor in either Wages or Pensions.
Then we move to Tax Year 2021/22. When inflation had already spiked. But not for Workers or Pensions. Because it happened after the cut-off date in 2020 to calculate Pensions. So the Govt had no choice but to continue offering one-off payments like the previous year. Which were funded by the Taxpayer
Then we move to Tax Year 2022/23 and the first part of 2023/4. Inflation had now spiked in a way that allowed Pensions to react. And they went up in line with inflation. Whereas Wages, for the people expected to pay for the Pensions went up far more slowly. Because the Triple Lock reacts more quickly to sudden change than wages
Then in the latter part of 2023/24 and the start of 2024/25. Where inflation is flying down. Not because of anything this Govt has done. Because fuel prices have dropped nearly as dramatically as they rose. And, as a consequence, Wage rises are catching up-and have risen far more quickly than inflation.
The Triple Lock has resulted in Pensioners receiving both the windfalls of a spike in inflation when wage rises were stagnant, and the spike in Wages when they comfortably outstripped Inflation.
Whereas the people expected to fund it-the taxpayer-only got 1 of those 2. Up until 2011, the same was true for Pensioners. Whereas now the people receiving Pensions are treated considerably more favourably than the people paying for it.
Which is economically unsustainable.
Instead of whinging on about my figures, you could just post the correct figures, assuming they prove your case. I dont particularly have an interest in this. Although I dont think that the average will be too different from the 4% average that the state pension has increased by. I was more concerned about the average increase in the state pension since the triple lock began. Rather than just highlight the last 2 years. Although these larger increases can only be a result of the reason the triple lock was put in place, in the first place. The average increase since the start, without including the last 2 years, is 3%. So for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock has provided on average an increase that could not be described as excessive.
You keep using non-relevant figures. At the wrong time. For the wrong year.
The worst figure you have given relates to "median" wage inflation. An awful comparator. So-for example-scrapping or reinstating Bankers bonuses is irrelevant to Mr Median man. Putting Minimum Wage up by 10% or freezing it is similarly irrelevant to Mr Median. Unlike Mr Mean.
The most interesting figure you have given is the 1 that includes workers' bonuses. Wrong time, wrong year-but bonuses is quite a hot topic in this. Because they are being used for workers-and ignored for Pensioners and State Benefits
I appreciate that you have no idea in relation to the actual workings of these things. Simply because you do not understand macro-economics or econometrics. Most people do not.
It has been an interest of mine for many years. And I am not an expert-but I needed to understand this sort of thing to be good at various parts of my job. So-here is how Wages work in the Real World. When a professional is advising Big Business.
1. There are times when there are massive changes, and it is impossible to predict what may happen in the next year or 2. The workers have Short-Term needs. And Big Business does not want to commit to wage rises for ever more. The result? You look to give some sort of Bonus. As little as you can get away with without Workers leaving. Without committing the Company to long-term payments
2. Then there are times when inflation may be likely either to go up a lot. Or down a lot. And people like me used to know a lot more than the average underfunded Trade Union. So-guess who got offered a seemingly-generous, market-leading 3 year deal in the former, and a 1-year deal in the latter?
So-how does this apply to the Triple Lock?
The Triple Lock started in 2011. After about 15-20 years of economic stability. Where inflation was pretty low, and pretty constant. Same for Wages. Unlike (say) the 25-30 years before that, where inflation and wages varied wildly.
And-provided that had continued, the Triple Lock was a largely affordable "perk" to Pensioners. And that remained true until late 2020. When the World changed.
In late 2020, fuel prices spiked massively. Suddenly. Catching everyone unawares-even the Energy Suppliers. So in the Tax Year 2020/21, massive Govt support was given. Some of it to everyone. Some of it to the Poor. And some of it to Pensioners, whether rich or poor. A Bonus, in Economic Terms. But a Bonus that was designed to be non-contractual. For Workers or Pensioners. And didn't present as a factor in either Wages or Pensions.
Then we move to Tax Year 2021/22. When inflation had already spiked. But not for Workers or Pensions. Because it happened after the cut-off date in 2020 to calculate Pensions. So the Govt had no choice but to continue offering one-off payments like the previous year. Which were funded by the Taxpayer
Then we move to Tax Year 2022/23 and the first part of 2023/4. Inflation had now spiked in a way that allowed Pensions to react. And they went up in line with inflation. Whereas Wages, for the people expected to pay for the Pensions went up far more slowly. Because the Triple Lock reacts more quickly to sudden change than wages
Then in the latter part of 2023/24 and the start of 2024/25. Where inflation is flying down. Not because of anything this Govt has done. Because fuel prices have dropped nearly as dramatically as they rose. And, as a consequence, Wage rises are catching up-and have risen far more quickly than inflation.
The Triple Lock has resulted in Pensioners receiving both the windfalls of a spike in inflation when wage rises were stagnant, and the spike in Wages when they comfortably outstripped Inflation.
Whereas the people expected to fund it-the taxpayer-only got 1 of those 2. Up until 2011, the same was true for Pensioners. Whereas now the people receiving Pensions are treated considerably more favourably than the people paying for it.
Which is economically unsustainable.
Instead of whinging on about my figures, you could just post the correct figures, assuming they prove your case. I dont particularly have an interest in this. Although I dont think that the average will be too different from the 4% average that the state pension has increased by. I was more concerned about the average increase in the state pension since the triple lock began. Rather than just highlight the last 2 years. Although these larger increases can only be a result of the reason the triple lock was put in place, in the first place. The average increase since the start, without including the last 2 years, is 3%. So for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock has provided on average an increase that could not be described as excessive.
There is a fundamental difference between you and me.
I read your posts carefully. Lots of reasons for that. One of which is that I probably agree with roughly 90% of 90% of your posts.
And, on the rare occasion that you post something that is inaccurate, I try and set out exactly why what you have said is wrong. Like here. It is not an attack on you. You are just misunderstanding stuff.
Whereas you treat it very personally. Try to maintain your arguments. Try to attack.
Which is completely fine. Except that you need to remember that I have been attacked by some of the best in the business. On subjects that they (as well as me) are expert in. For many years. Doesn't happen like that any more. A little bit of me misses that. Most of me does not.
The "correct" figures? You gave them. In the article. You just used a totally incorrect set of figures as a Comparator. Which wouldn't have been a problem. Until you started claiming your misguided figures as "facts" and tried to use them to belittle me.
Your statement that "for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock... (was not) excessive"?
I completely agree. It is clear to me that, for the first 9 years it worked just fine. For the next 2 years it was not the Triple Lock that was causing the problems. But that anyone who had looked at Economic performance in the 1970s-1990s could see that problems were around the corner. And that it is only the last 2 years that the Triple Lock has caused problems.
It is the size of the problems of the last 2 years, coupled with the inevitability that this will recur whenever this sort of economic problem happens again that is the problem.
Let's break it down in simple real terms. For the purposes of this example, there are 2 years. 1 of which inflation is 10% and wage growth is 5%. And the next where inflation is 5% and wage growth is 10%. Let's also disregard the effect of compounding for a second.
In that example, every £1,000 collected from the taxpayer goes up by 15%. And the amount given to Pensioners goes up by 20%
And there is no scenario where there is ever a period to catch up. Yes, there will be periods where the amount of increase will be the same. And periods where the gap will widen.
But no period where the increased gap will narrow. Unless Workers can be squeezed to pay a higher percentage in taxes than now. A massive increase.
You keep using non-relevant figures. At the wrong time. For the wrong year.
The worst figure you have given relates to "median" wage inflation. An awful comparator. So-for example-scrapping or reinstating Bankers bonuses is irrelevant to Mr Median man. Putting Minimum Wage up by 10% or freezing it is similarly irrelevant to Mr Median. Unlike Mr Mean.
The most interesting figure you have given is the 1 that includes workers' bonuses. Wrong time, wrong year-but bonuses is quite a hot topic in this. Because they are being used for workers-and ignored for Pensioners and State Benefits
I appreciate that you have no idea in relation to the actual workings of these things. Simply because you do not understand macro-economics or econometrics. Most people do not.
It has been an interest of mine for many years. And I am not an expert-but I needed to understand this sort of thing to be good at various parts of my job. So-here is how Wages work in the Real World. When a professional is advising Big Business.
1. There are times when there are massive changes, and it is impossible to predict what may happen in the next year or 2. The workers have Short-Term needs. And Big Business does not want to commit to wage rises for ever more. The result? You look to give some sort of Bonus. As little as you can get away with without Workers leaving. Without committing the Company to long-term payments
2. Then there are times when inflation may be likely either to go up a lot. Or down a lot. And people like me used to know a lot more than the average underfunded Trade Union. So-guess who got offered a seemingly-generous, market-leading 3 year deal in the former, and a 1-year deal in the latter?
So-how does this apply to the Triple Lock?
The Triple Lock started in 2011. After about 15-20 years of economic stability. Where inflation was pretty low, and pretty constant. Same for Wages. Unlike (say) the 25-30 years before that, where inflation and wages varied wildly.
And-provided that had continued, the Triple Lock was a largely affordable "perk" to Pensioners. And that remained true until late 2020. When the World changed.
In late 2020, fuel prices spiked massively. Suddenly. Catching everyone unawares-even the Energy Suppliers. So in the Tax Year 2020/21, massive Govt support was given. Some of it to everyone. Some of it to the Poor. And some of it to Pensioners, whether rich or poor. A Bonus, in Economic Terms. But a Bonus that was designed to be non-contractual. For Workers or Pensioners. And didn't present as a factor in either Wages or Pensions.
Then we move to Tax Year 2021/22. When inflation had already spiked. But not for Workers or Pensions. Because it happened after the cut-off date in 2020 to calculate Pensions. So the Govt had no choice but to continue offering one-off payments like the previous year. Which were funded by the Taxpayer
Then we move to Tax Year 2022/23 and the first part of 2023/4. Inflation had now spiked in a way that allowed Pensions to react. And they went up in line with inflation. Whereas Wages, for the people expected to pay for the Pensions went up far more slowly. Because the Triple Lock reacts more quickly to sudden change than wages
Then in the latter part of 2023/24 and the start of 2024/25. Where inflation is flying down. Not because of anything this Govt has done. Because fuel prices have dropped nearly as dramatically as they rose. And, as a consequence, Wage rises are catching up-and have risen far more quickly than inflation.
The Triple Lock has resulted in Pensioners receiving both the windfalls of a spike in inflation when wage rises were stagnant, and the spike in Wages when they comfortably outstripped Inflation.
Whereas the people expected to fund it-the taxpayer-only got 1 of those 2. Up until 2011, the same was true for Pensioners. Whereas now the people receiving Pensions are treated considerably more favourably than the people paying for it.
Which is economically unsustainable.
Instead of whinging on about my figures, you could just post the correct figures, assuming they prove your case. I dont particularly have an interest in this. Although I dont think that the average will be too different from the 4% average that the state pension has increased by. I was more concerned about the average increase in the state pension since the triple lock began. Rather than just highlight the last 2 years. Although these larger increases can only be a result of the reason the triple lock was put in place, in the first place. The average increase since the start, without including the last 2 years, is 3%. So for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock has provided on average an increase that could not be described as excessive.
There is a fundamental difference between you and me.
I read your posts carefully. Lots of reasons for that. One of which is that I probably agree with roughly 90% of 90% of your posts.
And, on the rare occasion that you post something that is inaccurate, I try and set out exactly why what you have said is wrong. Like here. It is not an attack on you. You are just misunderstanding stuff.
Whereas you treat it very personally. Try to maintain your arguments. Try to attack.
I didnt treat this personally.
Which is completely fine. Except that you need to remember that I have been attacked by some of the best in the business. On subjects that they (as well as me) are expert in. For many years. Doesn't happen like that any more. A little bit of me misses that. Most of me does not.
The "correct" figures? You gave them. In the article. You just used a totally incorrect set of figures as a Comparator. Which wouldn't have been a problem. Until you started claiming your misguided figures as "facts" and tried to use them to belittle me.
It was not my intention to belittle you, and apologise if that was how it seemed. You were suggesting that the pension increases outstripped wage increases due to the triple lock. When I looked at the state pension increases over the period, I was sure that this was not the case. I still dont believe that the wage increases could have been much less. Instead of ridiculing my figures, which I posted in good faith, you could have just posted the correct figures.
Your statement that "for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock... (was not) excessive"?
I completely agree. It is clear to me that, for the first 9 years it worked just fine. For the next 2 years it was not the Triple Lock that was causing the problems. But that anyone who had looked at Economic performance in the 1970s-1990s could see that problems were around the corner. And that it is only the last 2 years that the Triple Lock has caused problems.
Is it that the triple lock has caused problems, or that over the last two years we have experienced the economic eventualities that it was put in place for in the first place? You could surely argue that as the increases averaged 3% for the first 11 years, that there was no need to have a triple lock.
It is the size of the problems of the last 2 years, coupled with the inevitability that this will recur whenever this sort of economic problem happens again that is the problem.
I can see that. Although the purpose of the triple lock seems to have been to protect pensioners from these economic problems.
Let's break it down in simple real terms. For the purposes of this example, there are 2 years. 1 of which inflation is 10% and wage growth is 5%. And the next where inflation is 5% and wage growth is 10%. Let's also disregard the effect of compounding for a second.
In that example, every £1,000 collected from the taxpayer goes up by 15%. And the amount given to Pensioners goes up by 20%
And there is no scenario where there is ever a period to catch up. Yes, there will be periods where the amount of increase will be the same. And periods where the gap will widen.
But no period where the increased gap will narrow. Unless Workers can be squeezed to pay a higher percentage in taxes than now. A massive increase.
Which is why it is unsustainable. So it was a good idea to substantially reduce NI contributions?
You keep using non-relevant figures. At the wrong time. For the wrong year.
The worst figure you have given relates to "median" wage inflation. An awful comparator. So-for example-scrapping or reinstating Bankers bonuses is irrelevant to Mr Median man. Putting Minimum Wage up by 10% or freezing it is similarly irrelevant to Mr Median. Unlike Mr Mean.
The most interesting figure you have given is the 1 that includes workers' bonuses. Wrong time, wrong year-but bonuses is quite a hot topic in this. Because they are being used for workers-and ignored for Pensioners and State Benefits
I appreciate that you have no idea in relation to the actual workings of these things. Simply because you do not understand macro-economics or econometrics. Most people do not.
It has been an interest of mine for many years. And I am not an expert-but I needed to understand this sort of thing to be good at various parts of my job. So-here is how Wages work in the Real World. When a professional is advising Big Business.
1. There are times when there are massive changes, and it is impossible to predict what may happen in the next year or 2. The workers have Short-Term needs. And Big Business does not want to commit to wage rises for ever more. The result? You look to give some sort of Bonus. As little as you can get away with without Workers leaving. Without committing the Company to long-term payments
2. Then there are times when inflation may be likely either to go up a lot. Or down a lot. And people like me used to know a lot more than the average underfunded Trade Union. So-guess who got offered a seemingly-generous, market-leading 3 year deal in the former, and a 1-year deal in the latter?
So-how does this apply to the Triple Lock?
The Triple Lock started in 2011. After about 15-20 years of economic stability. Where inflation was pretty low, and pretty constant. Same for Wages. Unlike (say) the 25-30 years before that, where inflation and wages varied wildly.
And-provided that had continued, the Triple Lock was a largely affordable "perk" to Pensioners. And that remained true until late 2020. When the World changed.
In late 2020, fuel prices spiked massively. Suddenly. Catching everyone unawares-even the Energy Suppliers. So in the Tax Year 2020/21, massive Govt support was given. Some of it to everyone. Some of it to the Poor. And some of it to Pensioners, whether rich or poor. A Bonus, in Economic Terms. But a Bonus that was designed to be non-contractual. For Workers or Pensioners. And didn't present as a factor in either Wages or Pensions.
Then we move to Tax Year 2021/22. When inflation had already spiked. But not for Workers or Pensions. Because it happened after the cut-off date in 2020 to calculate Pensions. So the Govt had no choice but to continue offering one-off payments like the previous year. Which were funded by the Taxpayer
Then we move to Tax Year 2022/23 and the first part of 2023/4. Inflation had now spiked in a way that allowed Pensions to react. And they went up in line with inflation. Whereas Wages, for the people expected to pay for the Pensions went up far more slowly. Because the Triple Lock reacts more quickly to sudden change than wages
Then in the latter part of 2023/24 and the start of 2024/25. Where inflation is flying down. Not because of anything this Govt has done. Because fuel prices have dropped nearly as dramatically as they rose. And, as a consequence, Wage rises are catching up-and have risen far more quickly than inflation.
The Triple Lock has resulted in Pensioners receiving both the windfalls of a spike in inflation when wage rises were stagnant, and the spike in Wages when they comfortably outstripped Inflation.
Whereas the people expected to fund it-the taxpayer-only got 1 of those 2. Up until 2011, the same was true for Pensioners. Whereas now the people receiving Pensions are treated considerably more favourably than the people paying for it.
Which is economically unsustainable.
Instead of whinging on about my figures, you could just post the correct figures, assuming they prove your case. I dont particularly have an interest in this. Although I dont think that the average will be too different from the 4% average that the state pension has increased by. I was more concerned about the average increase in the state pension since the triple lock began. Rather than just highlight the last 2 years. Although these larger increases can only be a result of the reason the triple lock was put in place, in the first place. The average increase since the start, without including the last 2 years, is 3%. So for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock has provided on average an increase that could not be described as excessive.
There is a fundamental difference between you and me.
I read your posts carefully. Lots of reasons for that. One of which is that I probably agree with roughly 90% of 90% of your posts.
And, on the rare occasion that you post something that is inaccurate, I try and set out exactly why what you have said is wrong. Like here. It is not an attack on you. You are just misunderstanding stuff.
Whereas you treat it very personally. Try to maintain your arguments. Try to attack.
I didnt treat this personally.
Which is completely fine. Except that you need to remember that I have been attacked by some of the best in the business. On subjects that they (as well as me) are expert in. For many years. Doesn't happen like that any more. A little bit of me misses that. Most of me does not.
The "correct" figures? You gave them. In the article. You just used a totally incorrect set of figures as a Comparator. Which wouldn't have been a problem. Until you started claiming your misguided figures as "facts" and tried to use them to belittle me.
It was not my intention to belittle you, and apologise if that was how it seemed. You were suggesting that the pension increases outstripped wage increases due to the triple lock. When I looked at the state pension increases over the period, I was sure that this was not the case. I still dont believe that the wage increases could have been much less. Instead of ridiculing my figures, which I posted in good faith, you could have just posted the correct figures.
Your statement that "for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock... (was not) excessive"?
I completely agree. It is clear to me that, for the first 9 years it worked just fine. For the next 2 years it was not the Triple Lock that was causing the problems. But that anyone who had looked at Economic performance in the 1970s-1990s could see that problems were around the corner. And that it is only the last 2 years that the Triple Lock has caused problems.
Is it that the triple lock has caused problems, or that over the last two years we have experienced the economic eventualities that it was put in place for in the first place? You could surely argue that as the increases averaged 3% for the first 11 years, that there was no need to have a triple lock.
It is the size of the problems of the last 2 years, coupled with the inevitability that this will recur whenever this sort of economic problem happens again that is the problem.
I can see that. Although the purpose of the triple lock seems to have been to protect pensioners from these economic problems.
Let's break it down in simple real terms. For the purposes of this example, there are 2 years. 1 of which inflation is 10% and wage growth is 5%. And the next where inflation is 5% and wage growth is 10%. Let's also disregard the effect of compounding for a second.
In that example, every £1,000 collected from the taxpayer goes up by 15%. And the amount given to Pensioners goes up by 20%
And there is no scenario where there is ever a period to catch up. Yes, there will be periods where the amount of increase will be the same. And periods where the gap will widen.
But no period where the increased gap will narrow. Unless Workers can be squeezed to pay a higher percentage in taxes than now. A massive increase.
Which is why it is unsustainable. So it was a good idea to substantially reduce NI contributions?
A good idea?
From the perspective of the Economy, no From the perspective of trying to win an election, or at least lose it less badly? Yes.
Exactly the same holds true for this "plus" for the Triple Lock. Which they claim (with some justification) that it will benefit Pensioners in the Short Term. While causing massive damage in the Long Term
They won't be the first Govt to pretend they are doing something for the Country's benefit when they are really doing it for their own benefit.
You keep using non-relevant figures. At the wrong time. For the wrong year.
The worst figure you have given relates to "median" wage inflation. An awful comparator. So-for example-scrapping or reinstating Bankers bonuses is irrelevant to Mr Median man. Putting Minimum Wage up by 10% or freezing it is similarly irrelevant to Mr Median. Unlike Mr Mean.
The most interesting figure you have given is the 1 that includes workers' bonuses. Wrong time, wrong year-but bonuses is quite a hot topic in this. Because they are being used for workers-and ignored for Pensioners and State Benefits
I appreciate that you have no idea in relation to the actual workings of these things. Simply because you do not understand macro-economics or econometrics. Most people do not.
It has been an interest of mine for many years. And I am not an expert-but I needed to understand this sort of thing to be good at various parts of my job. So-here is how Wages work in the Real World. When a professional is advising Big Business.
1. There are times when there are massive changes, and it is impossible to predict what may happen in the next year or 2. The workers have Short-Term needs. And Big Business does not want to commit to wage rises for ever more. The result? You look to give some sort of Bonus. As little as you can get away with without Workers leaving. Without committing the Company to long-term payments
2. Then there are times when inflation may be likely either to go up a lot. Or down a lot. And people like me used to know a lot more than the average underfunded Trade Union. So-guess who got offered a seemingly-generous, market-leading 3 year deal in the former, and a 1-year deal in the latter?
So-how does this apply to the Triple Lock?
The Triple Lock started in 2011. After about 15-20 years of economic stability. Where inflation was pretty low, and pretty constant. Same for Wages. Unlike (say) the 25-30 years before that, where inflation and wages varied wildly.
And-provided that had continued, the Triple Lock was a largely affordable "perk" to Pensioners. And that remained true until late 2020. When the World changed.
In late 2020, fuel prices spiked massively. Suddenly. Catching everyone unawares-even the Energy Suppliers. So in the Tax Year 2020/21, massive Govt support was given. Some of it to everyone. Some of it to the Poor. And some of it to Pensioners, whether rich or poor. A Bonus, in Economic Terms. But a Bonus that was designed to be non-contractual. For Workers or Pensioners. And didn't present as a factor in either Wages or Pensions.
Then we move to Tax Year 2021/22. When inflation had already spiked. But not for Workers or Pensions. Because it happened after the cut-off date in 2020 to calculate Pensions. So the Govt had no choice but to continue offering one-off payments like the previous year. Which were funded by the Taxpayer
Then we move to Tax Year 2022/23 and the first part of 2023/4. Inflation had now spiked in a way that allowed Pensions to react. And they went up in line with inflation. Whereas Wages, for the people expected to pay for the Pensions went up far more slowly. Because the Triple Lock reacts more quickly to sudden change than wages
Then in the latter part of 2023/24 and the start of 2024/25. Where inflation is flying down. Not because of anything this Govt has done. Because fuel prices have dropped nearly as dramatically as they rose. And, as a consequence, Wage rises are catching up-and have risen far more quickly than inflation.
The Triple Lock has resulted in Pensioners receiving both the windfalls of a spike in inflation when wage rises were stagnant, and the spike in Wages when they comfortably outstripped Inflation.
Whereas the people expected to fund it-the taxpayer-only got 1 of those 2. Up until 2011, the same was true for Pensioners. Whereas now the people receiving Pensions are treated considerably more favourably than the people paying for it.
Which is economically unsustainable.
Instead of whinging on about my figures, you could just post the correct figures, assuming they prove your case. I dont particularly have an interest in this. Although I dont think that the average will be too different from the 4% average that the state pension has increased by. I was more concerned about the average increase in the state pension since the triple lock began. Rather than just highlight the last 2 years. Although these larger increases can only be a result of the reason the triple lock was put in place, in the first place. The average increase since the start, without including the last 2 years, is 3%. So for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock has provided on average an increase that could not be described as excessive.
There is a fundamental difference between you and me.
I read your posts carefully. Lots of reasons for that. One of which is that I probably agree with roughly 90% of 90% of your posts.
And, on the rare occasion that you post something that is inaccurate, I try and set out exactly why what you have said is wrong. Like here. It is not an attack on you. You are just misunderstanding stuff.
Whereas you treat it very personally. Try to maintain your arguments. Try to attack.
I didnt treat this personally.
Which is completely fine. Except that you need to remember that I have been attacked by some of the best in the business. On subjects that they (as well as me) are expert in. For many years. Doesn't happen like that any more. A little bit of me misses that. Most of me does not.
The "correct" figures? You gave them. In the article. You just used a totally incorrect set of figures as a Comparator. Which wouldn't have been a problem. Until you started claiming your misguided figures as "facts" and tried to use them to belittle me.
It was not my intention to belittle you, and apologise if that was how it seemed. You were suggesting that the pension increases outstripped wage increases due to the triple lock. When I looked at the state pension increases over the period, I was sure that this was not the case. I still dont believe that the wage increases could have been much less. Instead of ridiculing my figures, which I posted in good faith, you could have just posted the correct figures.
Your statement that "for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock... (was not) excessive"?
I completely agree. It is clear to me that, for the first 9 years it worked just fine. For the next 2 years it was not the Triple Lock that was causing the problems. But that anyone who had looked at Economic performance in the 1970s-1990s could see that problems were around the corner. And that it is only the last 2 years that the Triple Lock has caused problems.
Is it that the triple lock has caused problems, or that over the last two years we have experienced the economic eventualities that it was put in place for in the first place? You could surely argue that as the increases averaged 3% for the first 11 years, that there was no need to have a triple lock.
It is the size of the problems of the last 2 years, coupled with the inevitability that this will recur whenever this sort of economic problem happens again that is the problem.
I can see that. Although the purpose of the triple lock seems to have been to protect pensioners from these economic problems.
Let's break it down in simple real terms. For the purposes of this example, there are 2 years. 1 of which inflation is 10% and wage growth is 5%. And the next where inflation is 5% and wage growth is 10%. Let's also disregard the effect of compounding for a second.
In that example, every £1,000 collected from the taxpayer goes up by 15%. And the amount given to Pensioners goes up by 20%
And there is no scenario where there is ever a period to catch up. Yes, there will be periods where the amount of increase will be the same. And periods where the gap will widen.
But no period where the increased gap will narrow. Unless Workers can be squeezed to pay a higher percentage in taxes than now. A massive increase.
Which is why it is unsustainable. So it was a good idea to substantially reduce NI contributions?
A good idea?
From the perspective of the Economy, no From the perspective of trying to win an election, or at least lose it less badly? Yes.
Exactly the same holds true for this "plus" for the Triple Lock. Which they claim (with some justification) that it will benefit Pensioners in the Short Term. While causing massive damage in the Long Term
They won't be the first Govt to pretend they are doing something for the Country's benefit when they are really doing it for their own benefit.
Or the last
No. Although in reality it may make little difference.
I think you give too much credit to the people who came up with the Triple Lock.
It was never the case that the Triple Lock was supposed to "protect" Pensioners in the way you imagine.
This was the Coalition Govt. That delicate mixture of hard-headed Tories and well-intentioned Liberals.
What they were effectively saying was-
Forget those bad old days of the !970s and 1980s. We have beaten inflation. For ever. You will never see those days again. Which is why we want to scrap tying Pensions to just Wages or Inflation. Like the last 100 years. They can have the best of both Worlds. For ever.
Whereas what they should have said is something like:-
Forget those bad old days of the 1970s and 1980s. We have beaten inflation. For now. And hopefully for ever. Which is why we are going to change the system of tying Pensions to just Wages or Inflation. Like the last 100 years. They can have the best of both worlds. For now. And hopefully for ever. The only time we propose revisiting this is if a future Govt allows the bad old days to come back. For example, if inflation or wages go back to 10%+ per annum
Then we would be able to change things. Because politicians could blame other politicians for stuff. As opposed to taking the blame for promises made by yesterday's men. Who made promises for other people's tomorrows.
Rather than us hurtling towards the biggest financial crisis this country has ever seen.
I think you give too much credit to the people who came up with the Triple Lock.
It was never the case that the Triple Lock was supposed to "protect" Pensioners in the way you imagine.
This was the Coalition Govt. That delicate mixture of hard-headed Tories and well-intentioned Liberals.
What they were effectively saying was-
Forget those bad old days of the !970s and 1980s. We have beaten inflation. For ever. You will never see those days again. Which is why we want to scrap tying Pensions to just Wages or Inflation. Like the last 100 years. They can have the best of both Worlds. For ever.
Whereas what they should have said is something like:-
Forget those bad old days of the 1970s and 1980s. We have beaten inflation. For now. And hopefully for ever. Which is why we are going to change the system of tying Pensions to just Wages or Inflation. Like the last 100 years. They can have the best of both worlds. For now. And hopefully for ever. The only time we propose revisiting this is if a future Govt allows the bad old days to come back. For example, if inflation or wages go back to 10%+ per annum
Then we would be able to change things. Because politicians could blame other politicians for stuff. As opposed to taking the blame for promises made by yesterday's men. Who made promises for other people's tomorrows.
Rather than us hurtling towards the biggest financial crisis this country has ever seen.
Last post on this for now. Although I find this subject fascinating.
The original article was extremely good at setting out various realities as to why the current Pensions are unaffordable. Seriously-everyone should read it.
The sort of mathematical modelling required is beyond almost everyone. Including me. Because it requires massive maths, actuarial and predictive skills. Which is impossible. And why the article talked only in generalities.
So-let us make some massive assumptions to make this simpler. And look at a possible 2044.
1. Let us ignore the fact that the ratio of workers to pensioners is almost inevitably worse than now. Way worse 2. Let us assume that Triple Lock Plus has continued for 20 years 3. Let us also assume that, in real terms this has added an average of £2.5 to £3 Billion a year to the Tax Bill (probably a conservative estimate due to compounding) 4. That the extra cost is funded by rises in Income Tax 5. That everything else remains the same in Real Terms. Except the limited "plus" for Pensioners
That is a simplistic model It makes assumptions that will never prove to be true. Although I think it fair to say that taxes generally go up. Not stay the same. And the ratio of workers will get worse. And businesses will find new ways to avoid paying tax. And there is no sign of any increase in Tax Bands for Workers. Let us ignore all of that.
If nothing else changes, this is the effect of Triple Lock Plus in 2044:-
1. State Pensions will have gone up, in real terms, by about 30% 2. Pensioners will have a zero rate band that has increased in real terms by about 30%-to about £16,000 3. Workers will have a Basic Rate of Tax that has crept up to 30%, instead if 20%. 4. Workers start paying Tax at £12,000 still. To fund the increases of people "earning" more than that, who do not pay at all in relation to that increase
The only doubt is when it becomes unaffordable. Not if
Last post on this for now. Although I find this subject fascinating.
The original article was extremely good at setting out various realities as to why the current Pensions are unaffordable. Seriously-everyone should read it.
The sort of mathematical modelling required is beyond almost everyone. Including me. Because it requires massive maths, actuarial and predictive skills. Which is impossible. And why the article talked only in generalities.
So-let us make some massive assumptions to make this simpler. And look at a possible 2044.
1. Let us ignore the fact that the ratio of workers to pensioners is almost inevitably worse than now. Way worse 2. Let us assume that Triple Lock Plus has continued for 20 years 3. Let us also assume that, in real terms this has added an average of £2.5 to £3 Billion a year to the Tax Bill (probably a conservative estimate due to compounding) 4. That the extra cost is funded by rises in Income Tax 5. That everything else remains the same in Real Terms. Except the limited "plus" for Pensioners
That is a simplistic model It makes assumptions that will never prove to be true. Although I think it fair to say that taxes generally go up. Not stay the same. And the ratio of workers will get worse. And businesses will find new ways to avoid paying tax. And there is no sign of any increase in Tax Bands for Workers. Let us ignore all of that.
If nothing else changes, this is the effect of Triple Lock Plus in 2044:-
1. State Pensions will have gone up, in real terms, by about 30% 2. Pensioners will have a zero rate band that has increased in real terms by about 30%-to about £16,000 3. Workers will have a Basic Rate of Tax that has crept up to 30%, instead if 20%. 4. Workers start paying Tax at £12,000 still. To fund the increases of people "earning" more than that, who do not pay at all in relation to that increase
The only doubt is when it becomes unaffordable. Not if
You will need a bugle for that.
As you said somewhere earlier our politicians will need to start thinking beyond the next election. We could have a similar discussion of how the NHS would be funded in 2044. The PFI contracts are a terrific example of short term thinking. At some point we will need to do thing differently. Norway were clever enough to start a fund. We seem to be determined to sell off anything that could produce an income stream. Maybe if we had state owned utilities, energy providers, trains etc, that could be managed properly, and produce profits, it would help, rather than always relying on extra taxes.
Last post on this for now. Although I find this subject fascinating.
The original article was extremely good at setting out various realities as to why the current Pensions are unaffordable. Seriously-everyone should read it.
The sort of mathematical modelling required is beyond almost everyone. Including me. Because it requires massive maths, actuarial and predictive skills. Which is impossible. And why the article talked only in generalities.
So-let us make some massive assumptions to make this simpler. And look at a possible 2044.
1. Let us ignore the fact that the ratio of workers to pensioners is almost inevitably worse than now. Way worse 2. Let us assume that Triple Lock Plus has continued for 20 years 3. Let us also assume that, in real terms this has added an average of £2.5 to £3 Billion a year to the Tax Bill (probably a conservative estimate due to compounding) 4. That the extra cost is funded by rises in Income Tax 5. That everything else remains the same in Real Terms. Except the limited "plus" for Pensioners
That is a simplistic model It makes assumptions that will never prove to be true. Although I think it fair to say that taxes generally go up. Not stay the same. And the ratio of workers will get worse. And businesses will find new ways to avoid paying tax. And there is no sign of any increase in Tax Bands for Workers. Let us ignore all of that.
If nothing else changes, this is the effect of Triple Lock Plus in 2044:-
1. State Pensions will have gone up, in real terms, by about 30% 2. Pensioners will have a zero rate band that has increased in real terms by about 30%-to about £16,000 3. Workers will have a Basic Rate of Tax that has crept up to 30%, instead if 20%. 4. Workers start paying Tax at £12,000 still. To fund the increases of people "earning" more than that, who do not pay at all in relation to that increase
The only doubt is when it becomes unaffordable. Not if
Rishi Sunak is already forcing pensioners to pay tax on their state pension. His "triple lock plus" is too late
This triple lock plus pledge just reeks of the panic you face at 10pm at night, when you realise your dog has eaten your homework.
Comments
I am saying they are totally different figures to the other ones you quoted.
These ones
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%
Which are bollo
Let's give just 1 example. for the hard of thinking.
You claim that, in 2020 average wage rises were 6.4%.
Which, last time I checked, was more than for the 3 tax years either side of it for triple lock. And the same is true for other years.
Which is clearly not the case.
If that were true, the last 3 Prime Ministers would be in Prison
I was making the point that, if you use whichever of the 3 is highest from year to year it results in too high an increase.
Because an increase in inflation 1 year led to a wage rise the following year. And only Pensioners gained both times.
The average wage increase in the UK for 2024 is approximately 6.4%, according to the latest ONS data1. This translates to a median monthly earnings of £2,334 or an annual salary of £28,000 before tax. The growth in wages is running higher than the rate of inflation2.
5%
The overall average salary increase in the UK is forecast to rise to 5% in 20231. Average weekly earnings including bonuses increased 5.8% year-on-year to GBP 669/week in the three months to December 20232. Additionally, the UK government has increased the National Living Wage by 9.7% from £9.50 per hour to £10.42 as of April 20233.
Around 3%
The average salary increase in the UK for 2022 is predicted to be around 3%, which translates to a 0.4% pay rise when accounting for cost of living adjustments and inflation1. The private sector is experiencing larger increases at 6.2%, while the public sector lags behind at 2.2% due to funding constraints2.
Median Weekly Earnings (April 2021):
Across all jobs, median weekly earnings in April 2021 increased by 5.3% from the previous year (on a nominal basis). When adjusted for inflation, they increased by 3.6% in real terms2.
Here are the figures that I looked up.
I am not bothered about them.
You were.
I was more concerned about making the point that even with the triple lock in place the increases to the state pension could hardly be described as excessive over the period it has been in place.
Although nobody could argue that the increases over the last 2 years have been high.
The average increase in the 13 years the triple lock has been in place averages 4%.
The worst figure you have given relates to "median" wage inflation. An awful comparator. So-for example-scrapping or reinstating Bankers bonuses is irrelevant to Mr Median man. Putting Minimum Wage up by 10% or freezing it is similarly irrelevant to Mr Median. Unlike Mr Mean.
The most interesting figure you have given is the 1 that includes workers' bonuses. Wrong time, wrong year-but bonuses is quite a hot topic in this. Because they are being used for workers-and ignored for Pensioners and State Benefits
I appreciate that you have no idea in relation to the actual workings of these things. Simply because you do not understand macro-economics or econometrics. Most people do not.
It has been an interest of mine for many years. And I am not an expert-but I needed to understand this sort of thing to be good at various parts of my job. So-here is how Wages work in the Real World. When a professional is advising Big Business.
1. There are times when there are massive changes, and it is impossible to predict what may happen in the next year or 2. The workers have Short-Term needs. And Big Business does not want to commit to wage rises for ever more. The result? You look to give some sort of Bonus. As little as you can get away with without Workers leaving. Without committing the Company to long-term payments
2. Then there are times when inflation may be likely either to go up a lot. Or down a lot. And people like me used to know a lot more than the average underfunded Trade Union. So-guess who got offered a seemingly-generous, market-leading 3 year deal in the former, and a 1-year deal in the latter?
So-how does this apply to the Triple Lock?
The Triple Lock started in 2011. After about 15-20 years of economic stability. Where inflation was pretty low, and pretty constant. Same for Wages. Unlike (say) the 25-30 years before that, where inflation and wages varied wildly.
And-provided that had continued, the Triple Lock was a largely affordable "perk" to Pensioners. And that remained true until late 2020. When the World changed.
In late 2020, fuel prices spiked massively. Suddenly. Catching everyone unawares-even the Energy Suppliers. So in the Tax Year 2020/21, massive Govt support was given. Some of it to everyone. Some of it to the Poor. And some of it to Pensioners, whether rich or poor. A Bonus, in Economic Terms. But a Bonus that was designed to be non-contractual. For Workers or Pensioners. And didn't present as a factor in either Wages or Pensions.
Then we move to Tax Year 2021/22. When inflation had already spiked. But not for Workers or Pensions. Because it happened after the cut-off date in 2020 to calculate Pensions. So the Govt had no choice but to continue offering one-off payments like the previous year. Which were funded by the Taxpayer
Then we move to Tax Year 2022/23 and the first part of 2023/4. Inflation had now spiked in a way that allowed Pensions to react. And they went up in line with inflation. Whereas Wages, for the people expected to pay for the Pensions went up far more slowly. Because the Triple Lock reacts more quickly to sudden change than wages
Then in the latter part of 2023/24 and the start of 2024/25. Where inflation is flying down. Not because of anything this Govt has done. Because fuel prices have dropped nearly as dramatically as they rose. And, as a consequence, Wage rises are catching up-and have risen far more quickly than inflation.
The Triple Lock has resulted in Pensioners receiving both the windfalls of a spike in inflation when wage rises were stagnant, and the spike in Wages when they comfortably outstripped Inflation.
Whereas the people expected to fund it-the taxpayer-only got 1 of those 2. Up until 2011, the same was true for Pensioners. Whereas now the people receiving Pensions are treated considerably more favourably than the people paying for it.
Which is economically unsustainable.
I dont particularly have an interest in this.
Although I dont think that the average will be too different from the 4% average that the state pension has increased by.
I was more concerned about the average increase in the state pension since the triple lock began.
Rather than just highlight the last 2 years.
Although these larger increases can only be a result of the reason the triple lock was put in place, in the first place.
The average increase since the start, without including the last 2 years, is 3%.
So for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock has provided on average an increase that could not be described as excessive.
I read your posts carefully. Lots of reasons for that. One of which is that I probably agree with roughly 90% of 90% of your posts.
And, on the rare occasion that you post something that is inaccurate, I try and set out exactly why what you have said is wrong. Like here. It is not an attack on you. You are just misunderstanding stuff.
Whereas you treat it very personally. Try to maintain your arguments. Try to attack.
Which is completely fine. Except that you need to remember that I have been attacked by some of the best in the business. On subjects that they (as well as me) are expert in. For many years. Doesn't happen like that any more. A little bit of me misses that. Most of me does not.
The "correct" figures? You gave them. In the article. You just used a totally incorrect set of figures as a Comparator. Which wouldn't have been a problem. Until you started claiming your misguided figures as "facts" and tried to use them to belittle me.
Your statement that "for 11 out of the last 13 years the triple lock... (was not) excessive"?
I completely agree. It is clear to me that, for the first 9 years it worked just fine. For the next 2 years it was not the Triple Lock that was causing the problems. But that anyone who had looked at Economic performance in the 1970s-1990s could see that problems were around the corner. And that it is only the last 2 years that the Triple Lock has caused problems.
It is the size of the problems of the last 2 years, coupled with the inevitability that this will recur whenever this sort of economic problem happens again that is the problem.
Let's break it down in simple real terms. For the purposes of this example, there are 2 years. 1 of which inflation is 10% and wage growth is 5%. And the next where inflation is 5% and wage growth is 10%. Let's also disregard the effect of compounding for a second.
In that example, every £1,000 collected from the taxpayer goes up by 15%.
And the amount given to Pensioners goes up by 20%
And there is no scenario where there is ever a period to catch up. Yes, there will be periods where the amount of increase will be the same. And periods where the gap will widen.
But no period where the increased gap will narrow. Unless Workers can be squeezed to pay a higher percentage in taxes than now. A massive increase.
Which is why it is unsustainable.
From the perspective of the Economy, no
From the perspective of trying to win an election, or at least lose it less badly? Yes.
Exactly the same holds true for this "plus" for the Triple Lock. Which they claim (with some justification) that it will benefit Pensioners in the Short Term. While causing massive damage in the Long Term
They won't be the first Govt to pretend they are doing something for the Country's benefit when they are really doing it for their own benefit.
Or the last
Although in reality it may make little difference.
It was never the case that the Triple Lock was supposed to "protect" Pensioners in the way you imagine.
This was the Coalition Govt. That delicate mixture of hard-headed Tories and well-intentioned Liberals.
What they were effectively saying was-
Forget those bad old days of the !970s and 1980s. We have beaten inflation. For ever. You will never see those days again. Which is why we want to scrap tying Pensions to just Wages or Inflation. Like the last 100 years. They can have the best of both Worlds. For ever.
Whereas what they should have said is something like:-
Forget those bad old days of the 1970s and 1980s. We have beaten inflation. For now. And hopefully for ever. Which is why we are going to change the system of tying Pensions to just Wages or Inflation. Like the last 100 years. They can have the best of both worlds. For now. And hopefully for ever. The only time we propose revisiting this is if a future Govt allows the bad old days to come back. For example, if inflation or wages go back to 10%+ per annum
Then we would be able to change things. Because politicians could blame other politicians for stuff. As opposed to taking the blame for promises made by yesterday's men. Who made promises for other people's tomorrows.
Rather than us hurtling towards the biggest financial crisis this country has ever seen.
The original article was extremely good at setting out various realities as to why the current Pensions are unaffordable. Seriously-everyone should read it.
The sort of mathematical modelling required is beyond almost everyone. Including me. Because it requires massive maths, actuarial and predictive skills. Which is impossible. And why the article talked only in generalities.
So-let us make some massive assumptions to make this simpler. And look at a possible 2044.
1. Let us ignore the fact that the ratio of workers to pensioners is almost inevitably worse than now. Way worse
2. Let us assume that Triple Lock Plus has continued for 20 years
3. Let us also assume that, in real terms this has added an average of £2.5 to £3 Billion a year to the Tax Bill (probably a conservative estimate due to compounding)
4. That the extra cost is funded by rises in Income Tax
5. That everything else remains the same in Real Terms. Except the limited "plus" for Pensioners
That is a simplistic model It makes assumptions that will never prove to be true. Although I think it fair to say that taxes generally go up. Not stay the same. And the ratio of workers will get worse. And businesses will find new ways to avoid paying tax. And there is no sign of any increase in Tax Bands for Workers. Let us ignore all of that.
If nothing else changes, this is the effect of Triple Lock Plus in 2044:-
1. State Pensions will have gone up, in real terms, by about 30%
2. Pensioners will have a zero rate band that has increased in real terms by about 30%-to about £16,000
3. Workers will have a Basic Rate of Tax that has crept up to 30%, instead if 20%.
4. Workers start paying Tax at £12,000 still. To fund the increases of people "earning" more than that, who do not pay at all in relation to that increase
The only doubt is when it becomes unaffordable. Not if
As you said somewhere earlier our politicians will need to start thinking beyond the next election.
We could have a similar discussion of how the NHS would be funded in 2044.
The PFI contracts are a terrific example of short term thinking.
At some point we will need to do thing differently.
Norway were clever enough to start a fund.
We seem to be determined to sell off anything that could produce an income stream.
Maybe if we had state owned utilities, energy providers, trains etc, that could be managed properly, and produce profits, it would help, rather than always relying on extra taxes.
This triple lock plus pledge just reeks of the panic you face at 10pm at night, when you realise your dog has eaten your homework.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rishi-sunak-is-already-forcing-pensioners-to-pay-tax-on-their-state-pension-his-triple-lock-plus-is-too-late/ar-BB1ngmXq?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=3f649eb6465e48989bc0b391fea7929b&ei=12#fullscreen