Pension triple lock under review !!!!

[bigroomboy]

I think the perspective of the working man is that here is no way a pensioner sat at home should be getting a bigger increase to their income than them. That for me is why the triple lock should end. It should be linked into average pay increases and nothing else, to remain consistently connected to what what society have to deal with. Also the public sector remain an easy target for everybody. I can tell you that in the 13 years I've been in he public sector I've never seen a pay rise that even comes close to inflation. This year for example, if I'm working 60 hours a week and pay rise is capped at 4.5% it doesn't seem right to see people sat at home getting 8.5% regardless of what that benefit may be called.

[Yellow Bear]

13 minutes ago, bigroomboy said:

I think the perspective of the working man is that here is no way a pensioner sat at home should be getting a bigger increase to their income than them

Fair comment, however, even if the worker is on basic minimum wage and a 35 hour week the rise would be approx £20 per week  for 4.5%, at 30k this amounts to £25 pw.  The comparable increase at maximum basic state pension  (which is what we are talking about) is £6 50p  even at 8.5% it would only be £12..  So who is getting the bigger increase?

You need to examine what a % pay rise is actually worth before that sort of statement is made.

[bigroomboy]

I see what you mean yellow bear but you have to use percentages to keep things relative. Otherwise eventually everybody will be paid the same. We are seeing this in the workplace where the lowest paid are being given extra increases because the are so close to the point of not being able the meet average bills. Unfortunately the effect of that is devaluing the more senior positions requiring skills, qualifications and ultimately own the personal risk. The state pension was set as a minimal income assuming costs such as children, paying Mortgage etc were no longer a factor. Aiming your above example if that £25 per week is paying for 3-4 people and a mortgage in a far more unbalanced wage/house price environment than 20 years ago, then who is really getting the biggest increase?

[Yellow Bear]

8 minutes ago, bigroomboy said:

I see what you mean yellow bear but you have to use percentages to keep things relative. Otherwise eventually everybody will be paid the same. We are seeing this in the workplace where the lowest paid are being given extra increases because the are so close to the point of not being able the meet average bills. Unfortunately the effect of that is devaluing the more senior positions requiring skills, qualifications and ultimately own the personal risk. The state pension was set as a minimal income assuming costs such as children, paying Mortgage etc were no longer a factor. Aiming your above example if that £25 per week is paying for 3-4 people and a mortgage in a far more unbalanced wage/house price environment than 20 years ago, then who is really getting the biggest increase?

Sadly it works both ways.  We keep hearing about maintaining the differentials, however every time there is an across the board % increase these differentials get larger in real terms.

[shaun4860]

7 hours ago, Yellow Bear said:

How short is your memory - I can remember 34% income tax plus NI and VAT  in the late 70s under Labour governments.

I’m sure I can remember the highest tax bracket at some point was 95%?

Many top earners became tax exiles

[amateur]

3 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

I’m sure I can remember the highest tax bracket at some point was 95%?

Many top earners became tax exiles

It was actally 98%.

A combination of income tax and investment income surcharge. Under a Labour government.

Severely reduced when Margaret Thatcher came in. I remember being very pleasantly surprised by the change in my pay slips then. The difference in spending power was very tangible.

[TOPGUN749]

11 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

I think the perspective of the working man is that here is no way a pensioner sat at home should be getting a bigger increase to their income than them. That for me is why the triple lock should end. It should be linked into average pay increases and nothing else, to remain consistently connected to what what society have to deal with. Also the public sector remain an easy target for everybody. I can tell you that in the 13 years I've been in he public sector I've never seen a pay rise that even comes close to inflation. This year for example, if I'm working 60 hours a week and pay rise is capped at 4.5% it doesn't seem right to see people sat at home getting 8.5% regardless of what that benefit may be called.

But when you’re getting a pay rise it’s a percentage of a proper wage of perhaps £30,000 so getting 5% of that is more than 8% of £10,600. Before people object to the state pension rising they should try living their lifestyle on £203.85 a week,and remember that the more the pension rises the more there will be for them at 66 or 67!

[TOPGUN749]

11 hours ago, Yellow Bear said:

Fair comment, however, even if the worker is on basic minimum wage and a 35 hour week the rise would be approx £20 per week  for 4.5%, at 30k this amounts to £25 pw.  The comparable increase at maximum basic state pension  (which is what we are talking about) is £6 50p  even at 8.5% it would only be £12..  So who is getting the bigger increase?

You need to examine what a % pay rise is actually worth before that sort of statement is made.

Well said Yellow Bear! Agree it’s the amount of increase that’s important not the percentage! The person working 35 hours at minimum wage gets a weekly increase of £16.41 a week (£11.16 after deductions).

The person on £30,000 gets £25.96 a week increase (£17.65 after deductions) A pensioner getting 8.5% rise gets less than both of these  and even less if they are tax payers.

[TOPGUN749]

3 hours ago, amateur said:

It was actally 98%.

A combination of income tax and investment income surcharge. Under a Labour government.

Severely reduced when Margaret Thatcher came in. I remember being very pleasantly surprised by the change in my pay slips then. The difference in spending power was very tangible.

Yes Thatcher helped the rich but did little or nothing for the man earning £40 a week in 1979! In fact she even had the evil to make unemployment benefit taxable for the first time! At the same time raised vat from 8% to 15%. Hitting the low paid who wouldn’t vote for her!

[12gauge82]

13 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

I think the perspective of the working man is that here is no way a pensioner sat at home should be getting a bigger increase to their income than them. That for me is why the triple lock should end. It should be linked into average pay increases and nothing else, to remain consistently connected to what what society have to deal with. Also the public sector remain an easy target for everybody. I can tell you that in the 13 years I've been in he public sector I've never seen a pay rise that even comes close to inflation. This year for example, if I'm working 60 hours a week and pay rise is capped at 4.5% it doesn't seem right to see people sat at home getting 8.5% regardless of what that benefit may be called.

I understand your perspective. However I think there is a far wider issue in society and that's the way the working masses are treated and I include those who are now pensioners. The money being amassed at the top of society is now completely out of sink with what they contribute in the way of job creation ect. Something needs to alter because with the path we're on, your average Joe will end up in 15 minute city's, priced out of being able to travel or own anything.

The money is out there, it's not a binary choice of pay pensioners or those still working, it should be about those at the very top being forced to fairly share some of the wealth created by workers and to do that we need strong governments right across the west who's interest lie in improving everyday people's lives. In this country, with the cons and labour that isn't happening any time soon.

[TOPGUN749]

8 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

I’m sure I can remember the highest tax bracket at some point was 95%?

Many top earners became tax exiles

I think income tax was 33% in 1977,and National Insurance at 7%,however vat was only 8%, Thatcher put it up to 15% straight away,hitting the poor most!

[bigroomboy]

2 hours ago, TOPGUN749 said:

Well said Yellow Bear! Agree it’s the amount of increase that’s important not the percentage! The person working 35 hours at minimum wage gets a weekly increase of £16.41 a week (£11.16 after deductions).

The person on £30,000 gets £25.96 a week increase (£17.65 after deductions) A pensioner getting 8.5% rise gets less than both of these  and even less if they are tax payers.

If that were true then we should apply the same to Tax and make that a flat contribution!

[bigroomboy]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I understand your perspective. However I think there is a far wider issue in society and that's the way the working masses are treated and I include those who are now pensioners. The money being amassed at the top of society is now completely out of sink with what they contribute in the way of job creation ect. Something needs to alter because with the path we're on, your average Joe will end up in 15 minute city's, priced out of being able to travel or own anything.

The money is out there, it's not a binary choice of pay pensioners or those still working, it should be about those at the very top being forced to fairly share some of the wealth created by workers and to do that we need strong governments right across the west who's interest lie in improving everyday people's lives. In this country, with the cons and labour that isn't happening any time soon.

I agree with your view but I don't think pension policy is going to be the way to correct that. I think the argument being made way back at the start was effectively that pensioners see a disproportionately sweet offer because of their voting power and it's not affordable for the country long term. I have to agree, not that it should be taken away, but it should not ever be a sweeter deal than the working man is getting, like all other benefits. When the current pension system was put in place it was expected to give people on average a comfortable 10 years. Now it's quite commonly supporting people for longer than they ever worked. It's the second biggest UK government expenditure almost joint with the spend on the entire health service.

[Newbie to this]

20 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

If that were true then we should apply the same to Tax and make that a flat contribution!

10% flat rate should do it, and close all loopholes for avoidance.

10p on every £ earned.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Newbie to this

[armsid]

Before we all forget the statee pension is contribution based exactly the same as a private pension but without the death benifit because you have to have so many years of contributions to get the pension. If you have gaps in your record it could be topped up to give a better than basic payout at 65 just like avc,s on private pension contributionsIt is what ie is National Insurance that you pay a contribution each week from your pay to obtain recieve a pension at retirement it is not a benifit and for some people they have worked in some hazardous jobs to make this country they deserve the pension.

[Rim Fire]

11 hours ago, armsid said:

Before we all forget the statee pension is contribution based exactly the same as a private pension but without the death benifit because you have to have so many years of contributions to get the pension. If you have gaps in your record it could be topped up to give a better than basic payout at 65 just like avc,s on private pension contributionsIt is what ie is National Insurance that you pay a contribution each week from your pay to obtain recieve a pension at retirement it is not a benifit and for some people they have worked in some hazardous jobs to make this country they deserve the pension.

This     I was paying AVC  150£ a month  to top up my personable yrs  and as for dangerous  work I was in Llanwern  stell works working in and around  moulton metal what I get off my private  pension  I payed in 

[spanj]

On 12/09/2023 at 22:31, oowee said:

We need to reduce payments or life expectancy. Either that or increase output and profitability..... ooops sorry I forgot we voted against that. 

Still not over it? If you want to be ruled by the unelected Federal State of Europe then please feel free to move to whichever of their states you choose. Obviously itll be a bit more difficult now but am sure there are plenty of dinghies in dover

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, spanj said:

Still not over it? If you want to be ruled by the unelected Federal State of Europe then please feel free to move to whichever of their states you choose. Obviously itll be a bit more difficult now but am sure there are plenty of dinghies in dover

Just applying for the visa. More phaff and expense. Taking control 🤣 Horizon 🤣 ETIAS 🤣 trade 🤣 

[Vince Green]

Just a small statistic. When the State Pension was introduced three quarters of all men didn't live long enough to collect it.

The ones that did only lived a few more years in most instances.

It's not about keeping up with inflation it's about keeping pace with life expectancy.

Also, those of us lucky enough to collect our pensions for twenty or thirty years will most likely cost the NHS and absolute fortune during that time.

[oowee]

21 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Just a small statistic. When the State Pension was introduced three quarters of all men didn't live long enough to collect it.

The ones that did only lived a few more years in most instances.

It's not about keeping up with inflation it's about keeping pace with life expectancy.

Also, those of us lucky enough to collect our pensions for twenty or thirty years will most likely cost the NHS and absolute fortune during that time.

^^^^^^ This, bang on. 

[12gauge82]

10 hours ago, oowee said:

^^^^^^ This, bang on. 

What a shame we can't go back even further to the stone age when the average life expectancy was about 30 and there was no pension, they were the good days.

[Rewulf]

15 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Also, those of us lucky enough to collect our pensions for twenty or thirty years will most likely cost the NHS and absolute fortune during that time.

15 hours ago, oowee said:

^^^^^^ This, bang on. 

I know, terrible isnt it ?
Why on earth people dont expect to work themselves to death , while paying taxes into pension pots they will never collect is beyond me 😆

 

4 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

What a shame we can't go back even further to the stone age when the average life expectancy was about 30 and there was no pension, they were the good days.

Get a labour government in, and you might see something like that.

[Bigteddy1954]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I know, terrible isnt it ?
Why on earth people dont expect to work themselves to death , while paying taxes into pension pots they will never collect is beyond me 😆

 

Get a labour government in, and you might see something like that.

 

Hi rewullf so you think the present gov is doing so well at moment lol

[Bigteddy1954]

Name one good thing they have done or got right in the last 13 years .

[Vince Green]

11 minutes ago, Bigteddy1954 said:

Name one good thing they have done or got right in the last 13 years .

Brexit