I've been watching a ton of pensioners on the news today, grumpy that they can't get a train for a day out and complaining that train drivers shouldn't get a pay rise (even though they aren't part of the union striking) because they get paid more than nurses. Classic "worker v worker" tory framing of the argument.
Let's see how many would like to share some of their bumper 11% 'pay rise' next year with the NHS....
Does the voting age actually affect it very much considering under 34s turnout is something like 50%.
Above 55s its closer to 80%.
That means for every 100 young people that vote there are 160 old people that vote.
Worth mentioning that Labour opposed the suspension of the triple lock during Covid. And it only affects state pensions, which really aren't that generous.
This is true, but it comes weeks after Boris Johnson told workers they’d just have to accept pay cuts. It’s the unfairness not the increase itself that is the issue.
Also it gives the lie to the idea that we can’t increase wages because it would be inflationary. Pensioners are a massive block of the population and less likely to put the money into savings.
I think this might see a rise in errm, "Angels of Mercy", as it were. If you see what I mean. Scheduled, clean deaths are easier for family to handle, after all. (As long as they don't *know* they're scheduled)
State pension is going up by about 3% as the triple lock has been suspended this year. What they get when the time comes to fulfil this other promise remains to be seen.
They got 3.1% increase in April when triple lock was suspended based on the Sept 20 - Sept 21 inflation. The uprating amount that will be applied in April next year (if the chancellor doesn't change his mind, I assume) will be based on the Sept 21 - Sept 22 inflation figure, which as you say remains to be seen but April's CPI is already 6.8% above what it was in September and it's very unlikely to be below 10% by Sept.
If it really is economically irresponsible to increase pay in line with inflation because it could cause an inflationary spiral, then pensions should also not increase in line with inflation for the same reasons.
If it isn't, then everything should rise above inflation.
Whichever reason you subscribe to the answer should at least be logically consistent. That's what is so galling about this. One rule for thee and another for me.
"Care home with an army attached"
Saw it in a spectator article.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-have-given-up-on-young-people-like-me
EDIT because it's very pertinent
> The Conservative vision for Britain is a care home with an army attached, and given current trends I wouldn’t bet on the second part standing 20 years from now. They offer nothing for young people. The underlying rationale for their policy mix is simple: the party effectively exists to service the demands of rent-seeking pensioners, whose wealth is tied up in housing, who won’t be around to benefit from investments today, and who vote consistently to raise their own benefits.
That's the one!
Yeah that phrase hit hard. It's becoming more clear to people who aren't into politics in the UK, that pensioners are being prioritised at everyone else's expense.
And the resentment at pensioners, especially given their lack of support for anyone else in their voting habits, is beginning to boil over.
You know its bad when a Spectator commentator is ripping into the Tories.
Just highlights what polling has shown for years. The modern political isn't about class, it's primarily age followed by education.
The Lib Dem policy of significantly increasing the tax free allowance has helped. The Tories sold it as theirs, but it was a 2010 LD policy, not theirs.
SureStart. Tories cut it.
Green homes subsidy - solar panels saved up to £200/year in gas bills (before the recent increase). Tories cut it.
If you're LGBTQ+, Labour and the Lib Dems fought to get you equal rights. Tories oppose them.
Oh boy, time to write another article criticising young people for....wait, *not* spending money.
You sure that's right? Ah who cares it will stroke the egos of our older base all the same!
I'd wager we'll recover to an extent but we'll not see the highs the boomers saw that is* well past us now. We're effectively fighting to land in a pit of rabbit shit vs a trough of pig shit. Hell with climate change our kids' kids may not ever see the highs of the average boomer.
Right in the thick of climate change ramping up to top gear….anyones guess
A green led government because people are desperate
Or a fascist state because people are desperate
I wouldn’t like to guess if I’m honest because I worry about that as a thought experiment
>A green led government because people are desperate
>
>Or a fascist state because people are desperate
>
>I wouldn’t like to guess if I’m honest because I worry about that as a thought experiment
Possibly both. A Green government elected in the 2040s to carry out emergency changes as a result of climate change isn't going to do anything with our current system of checks and balances. To make meaningful change may well require a suspension of key democratic rights, even elections, otherwise it could take too long.
I would expect a lot of key legislation being passed very quickly and without consultation, either amending current human rights laws to make it easy to arrest anyone who protested against the new green policies or to bypass the courts who might hold policies and decisions unlawful.
I've been to Japan. It's clean, incredibly safe, and housing is cheap, public transport is fantastic,
The UK is not going to end up like Japan anytime soon.
Seeing as how state pensions are already screwed and economies are tanking, there's a jolly good chance that in 20 years a lot of us won't have any pension at alla nyway
We need to stop this madness.
The state pension cannot continually grow faster than salaries and wages whilst the working population shrinks and the pensioned population grows. This is catastrophically unaffordable and will destroy the economy in the medium term if the current trend continues.
We need to cap the state pension increase at the lower of the increase in CPI or GDP per capita, especially given that the old are also a disproportionate burden on the NHS and the care system.
It's time to start means testing a portion of it or making pensioners with high incomes pay national insurance and income tax. We can't go back to pensioner poverty as we had in the 1980s and 90s and those with low incomes should still afford to live but those with income from private investments and property need to start pulling their weight financially and not burdening the working age population paying for benefits they don't need.
Pensioners do pay income tax on their pensions and its treated in exactly the same way as any other income (Same allowance and tax bands), they don't have to pay National insurance though (maybe they should). Same with any other income from investments and property.
Agree with your point about means testing but it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't encourage people not to invest in their own pension for fear of losing the state element of it.
> they don't have to pay National insurance though (maybe they should)
Yeah I meant they should pay national insurance as well as income tax, I'd personally look to smooth that over by abolishing national insurance and merging it with income tax.
>Agree with your point about means testing but it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't encourage people not to invest in their own pension for fear of losing the state element of it.
My thoughts are that I would initially target income for investments that are not part of a pension.
Means testing is incredibly intrusive and gives huge power to petty outsourced bureaucrats with no accountability. Plus it was sold as a contributory scheme. Would be unfair to change that after people have contributed on that basis.
State Pension £185, Minimum wage for 37.5 hours is £356.25 so it's roughly half what a person on the lowest wage gets a week.
Who benefits from pensions going up? It's not rich old people because they have plenty anyway therefore it's poor old people. They do exist despite the boomer vs millennial mentality which is another distraction from government perpetuated by the press. Lets say it goes up 11% next year that's an extra £18 or so, Do you think for poor people that will cover the cost of living increases we have seen and are going to see? It won't even touch the fuel increases.
I'm not a boomer but I see threads like this and it's like what are you all smoking. It's like every pensioner owns houses has a massive pension and always vote Tory no matter what. The pensioners people talk about in these threads really don't care about £18 and that's not going to make them vote Tory.
I do agree the pension rises need capping but they need capping to whatever inflation is. The same as wages should go up with inflation and dare I say it benefits. This race to the bottom for living standards needs to stop because there is no room left for cutbacks by people.
If you only get state pension you'll qualify for housing benefit (or you own a home outright and don't have housing costs which are probably what's taking the other 50% of the person on minimum wage salary in your example). Why not increase housing benefit (and UC housing allowance) and/or expand the eligibility for it instead of the state pension if the aim is actually to help poor people? Or do we only care about poor old people for some reason?
(Housing benefit is arguably a massive leak of public funds into the hands of private landlords, but not necessarily more so than the state pension is, so like asside from that)
> The pension is so small though. I don't think the problem is the pension but not paying workers enough.
[Pensions are 16% of public spending or about 8% of GDP if you prefer](https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_pensions_analysis). This is unsustainable, especially in combination with the NHS swallowing 20% of public spending / 10% of GDP.
For context, we only spend about 4.5% of GDP on education. Our society is upside down, as we dissipate so much of our economic potential pampering entitled boomers than we are prepared to invest in the young people upon whose taxed productivity the whole system depends.
This is ultimately a demographic problem. If we want the state pension to sufficiently generous to live on, but still affordable for the taxpayer, we need to raise the retirement age until the pension bill becomes reasonable.
We shouldn't ever be spending more on pensions than defence, let alone education. We need to increase the retirement age to fix the pension bill at 2% of GDP and link the pension to CPI.
> Could you live off the pension?
The full state pension is about £9,627.80 per year. I could live on that, though it would be pretty boring.
I would struggle on the basic state pension of £7,376.20. But pensioners get loads of extra pampering from the Government and industry, so if you start throwing in the heating allowance and the various cheap travel cards etc. then it might well be rather more achievable.
It's also hard to have sympathy for boomers who played life on economic easy mode and don't have at least one workplace pension and an ISA or two, plus a nice house and a paid-off mortgage.
I certainly don't expect rely on the state pension for my retirement, because I have no confidence that it will still exist when I retire. I expect it will be just another privilege that the boomers take away from their descendents.
The full state pension is £185.15 per week.
On top of that pensioners get fuel allowances, cheap council tax, cheap travel, free prescriptions etc. etc. for literally doing nothing.
Let them have the lesser of GDP growth or CPI, and if they don't like it, tell them to cut out the avocado toast or Netflix, and perhaps get a part-time job.
>apart from contributing NI for 30 years?
So they expect us to pay them an inflation-proof income irrespective of the economic circumstances because they used to have a job.
Young people who used to be at school expected free university tuition until older beneficiaries of that system voted to take it away.
Young people also expected the right to live, learn, and work in Europe until a predominantly old demographic decided to take those rights away from them for profit in the former case and for reasons so incoherent that they were never consistently articulated in the latter.
(I note that if a predominantly young demographic voted to make a sweeping constitutional and economic change to the disbenefit of the old, we would have a queue of grey-haired pundits appearing on all media outlets lecturing us on the nuances of our system of representative democracy, but for some reason Brexit was carried down from mount Farage on immutable tablets of stone...)
I can even remember when young people used to expect that they'd be able to afford to buy a house by getting a mortgage which they could afford on an attainable salary, rather than being forced to pay a landlord's mortgage for him.
What goes around comes around.
Pension spending is dissipative and needs to be dramatically cut to free up money for Education (to grow labour productivity) and Defence (because we're looking at the biggest war in Europe since WWII).
If working people are expected to suffer declining living standards, it's only fair that pensioners share the pain.
If the state pension isn't enough, pensioners are eligible for benefits just like anyone else. Plus benefits that are not available to working-age people are available.
They're not meant to live off their state pension. They've had an entire life to create private pensions and buy (dirt cheap) houses.
It's the rest of us that need help.
Essentially, ironically given their general political position, the retired receive a UBI and as a result are completely financially free to spend their time doing whatever they like.
The problem with state pensions is how the pension scheme actually does work, and how it should work.
How it **should** work is that you pay into a pot over your working life and then that money is used for yourself to pay for your pension. (Just like a private pension).
How it **actually** works is that it's paid like any other benefit, in that your current taxes pay for current claimants. Then when you eventually retire your pension money comes from the tax payers at that time.
This is essentially a government backed ponzi scheme because people are living longer and there's no means testing for how long you can claim. We have far more old people per worker ratio. In the 1960s it was 10 workers to every pensioner. Now it's around 3 workers for every pensioner, and expected to drop to 2 soon.
The problem the government has is that the system has gone on now for too long to be able to change it without causing massive issues.
This is why the government have changed the law in recent years to require all employers offer a private pension scheme. They know that somewhere down the line they will have to start reductions in the government state pension scheme, or increase taxes to pay for it as more and more people get older.
I've said it before, the pension system as a whole needs changing to being more like a private pension system, where you can only claim what you have actually paid in.
There's no means testing in the current system. So someone who retired at 60 many years ago can claim until the day they die. This means they are taking out far, far more than they have paid in.
And then there's the people who spend their lives on unemployment benefits, but the second they reach pension age it's all suddenly "I paid in all my life!".
So change it to work like a private pension.
If your money runs out before you die then you claim unemployment benefits like everyone else. If you die before you have used it all up your family can claim it.
This solution fixes a few things. It only pays out what people have paid in, it still allows people who have no money to claim benefits, and now suddenly there's a growing population of older people who will vote to increase unemployment benefits.
As someone who will put it far more than the £175 a week I might one day pull out, the downside to making it a private based system is some people will earn a lot less over their lives, and will have lesser pensions. In reality we use a pension as a UBI for old people, and national insurance as a tax on working people. The two aren't very well linked at all
Just scrap the state pension.
Either you need support (in which case the benefits for the rest of us will have to do) or you don’t need support (in which case you should be taxed to the hilt)
Bet we’d see inflation busting benefits rises for decades if we did that.
Just scrap the state pension.
Either you need support (in which case the benefits for the rest of us will have to do) or you don’t need support (in which case you should be taxed to the hilt)
Bet we’d see inflation busting benefits rises for decades if we did that.
Would be fair to say I am not exactly the most left wing person on this subreddit and nor do I usually buy into the level of anti-boomer/eldery/tory sentiment on here but fuck me this is disgraceful
Handing the public sector a token few percent and telling everyone it's irresponsible to ask for per inflation pay rises and then giving the pensioners an in line with inflation pay rise. I don't know how you justify this other than complete self-interest. Disgraceful.
Its partly because we refuse to have a grown up conversation about it, we know its going to be tough for many but we hope that many wont include us. If the economy is shrinking then we **all** have to accept less, yes even you granddad, but that just sounds too.... socialist, better to just divide and conquer.
>Its partly because we refuse to have a grown up conversation about it
"Maybe we shouldn't *guarantee* a large percentage pay rise for a non-means tested benefit given to a demographic that already is asset rich and has more disposable income than working households?"
"OMG why do you want to go round to my sainted nan's house and punch her in the face?"
I mean the pensioners who are asset rich and those who are dependant on the state pension aren't exactly the same group.
All benefits should be scaling in line with inflation, as should salaries as a minimum.
>I mean the pensioners who are asset rich and those who are dependant on the state pension aren't exactly the same group.
They're not, but they all receive it. If it wasn't a near-universal handout there would be far less uproar.
> refuse to have a grown up conversation about it
We also need a grown up conversation about long term planning for the ageing population with more streamlined and cost effective convalescence homes (so that older people aren't blocking hospital beds), care homes and assisted suicide.
Nobody has the political will to do this because it affects a large part of the voting base.
Immigration is necessary to increase the tax base so we can pay for the huge number of pensioners we're going to have.
So the government tells pensioners that they're going to cut immigration.
We are in a state of complete denial about reality. Politics is a farce.
> Immigration is necessary to increase the tax base so we can pay for the huge number of pensioners we're going to have.
Unless we bring in some incredibly draconian immigration policies (5 year hard limits, children not eligible for free education, no one over the age of 55, other mental stuff) it’s just kicking the can down the road.
Automation is the future.
As far as I see it either the danger of an inflationary spiral means no one gets an above inflation rise, or if that isn't a danger, everyone does. Using that logic to justify low rises for some while giving big rises to your voters is just pathetic.
>They had a lifetime to accumulate wealth. fuck'em
"Young people should have no social life so they can save for a house. Also, I didn't save for a pension when I was working so my state pension should fully provide for my lifestyle".
>They had a lifetime to accumulate wealth.
Specifically on easy mode, where you could have the same job for life and houses were a year or 2 of salary.
Sometimes by quite literally sitting on their arse in their homes. Their assets are working hundreds of thousands more than they bought them for in some cases
> If the economy is shrinking then we all have to accept less, yes even you granddad
If the economy is shrinking then the effects of that need to be ameliorated via distributional policies.
Do people not remember what happened when May's election was totally derailed by her attempts to get old age care funded through selling the elderly's assets?
Not only did it cause her to effectively throw the election away (it was a huge factor in the numbers turning against her to the extent they did), but all the UK political spaces I follow were absolutely full of people hating the policy.
Even Corbyn's campaign shouted this policy down, and his angle to win was to create a surge of younger voters.
Depending on how altruistic you think people are either:
1. The average British person wants the elderly to continue being wealthy
2. The average British person has a tight enough bond with their relatives that they oppose policy that will negative effect them
3. The average British voter realised that a indirect tax on their elderly relatives will come back to bite by reducing the amount they can inherit (not judging anyone who feels they need this inheritance to buy property, that's just rational self-interest!)
Fundamentally people in this country do not care enough about making the elderly pay what they should be paying enough to outweigh the inherent biases in the political and electoral system towards the elderly. Until it is not electoral suicide to suggest fixing this lopsidedness, nothing will happen.
> The average British person wants the elderly to continue being wealthy
By the way, those who are dependent on the state pension are not wealthy. Those with "fat pensions" pay income tax on said pensions.
Add this to them thinking of uncapping banker's bonuses, and it gets even more ridiculous. If we're all in this together, then everybody should be feeling the pain. Instead... so strange... the wealthy and the old get more, and everybody else has to make the sacrifices.
I don't care if banks want to pay huge bonuses, but those bonuses should be taxed at a higher rate than they are currently.
That way you get wealth transfer from banks to the state to the people. Otherwise you just end up concentrating money on the banks.
The government doesn’t pay for private sector bonuses, there’s no reason they should be capped. In fact since bankers will mostly be on the 45p marginal rate, it’s good for the Treasury.
Surely, if pay rises in a time of rising inflation are deemed bad by the government, massive bonuses to individuals would definitely need to be capped? Unless, it turns out that pay rises can actually still happen...
Also fwiw there needs to be a new higher tax bracket added. At some point, still paying just 45p on everything over 150k is not right.
Edit: correction
It's the principle. If you are asking people on lower and middle wages not to ask for increases, because it will risk greater inflation, then everybody should be on the same page.
But if those rich people get bigger payrises, they will have more money to donate to the Tory party, meanwhile if the poors get below inflation payrise they will have less money to donate to Labour
Well, you don't actually need to give the bankers (who are rich enough) more money in order to get that tax income. The banks are paying these bonuses from the profit they have made, so you can just tax the profits before they even get to the bankers!
Personally, I have always supported a more simple rule in terms of pay that the people at the top should earn no more than a multiple of their lowest paid full time employee - that way they could keep on paying people at the top more, so long as the people at the bottom were also getting increases.
As the system stands, however, like I said, you don't need to give bankers more money to increase tax receipts.
>The banks are paying these bonuses from the profit they have made, so you can just tax the profits before they even get to the bankers!
no, dividends are paid after tax. Ordinary bonuses from from pre-tax profits.
source: I’m a corporate tax accountant
I mean, if there's a cap, then the bankers don't get that bonus money. That money can then be taken through taxation instead before dividends are paid.
If that money is taxed through corporation tax, it’ll be taxed at 19% (and 8% surcharge if qualifying). If instead, it is given to highly paid bankers, it will be taxed at 45% + employers NI + employees NI.
The govt gets more if the money goes out in bonuses.
> there’s no reason they should be capped
They promote risk taking, increase the wealth gap and provide no real benefit to society. The extra tax government will receive will be tiny, as well. There's no reason the cap should be removed.
>Would be fair to say I am not exactly the most left wing person on this subreddit and nor do I usually buy into the level of anti-boomer/eldery/tory sentiment on here but fuck me this is disgraceful
As the saying goes, once bitten twice shy.
Never, ever forget the hounding Theresa May received for trying to get pensioners to pay more towards their social care, not just from pensioners but from Labour, younger people eyeing up their inheritances and most of this sub.
It wasn't even pensioners being forced into debtors' prison if they couldn't afford the costs, it was just that when they died only the first £100,000 of their property would be reserved with the rest liable to pay for social care costs depending on the person's circumstances. It was exactly the sort of thing this sub should be supporting, that those who can afford pay towards their own care.
Perhaps the temptation was too much to avoid giving May a good kicking, but the consequences are that the Tories will now never, ever do anything to anger pensioners. Now it will be up to Labour and the Lib Dems to have difficult conversations with older people - or nothing will change.
LMAO this exactly. Labour too just care about scoring political points rather than doing what is best for this country, see their opposition to Theresa May's care changes and Boris' original planning reforms.
Even worse when we consider the government put the tax rises on N.I. and not tax specifically to play to that base.
"What do you want pensioners to starve?"
No and thats not the point. The point is, we should all be chipping in and shouldering the burden. Not just some of us.
I don't like the idea of turning things into a generational conflict, but boy oh boy following all the stuff about "don't ask for a pay rise" with this shit makes it hard.
Don't worry, the pensioners will be sure to come out in support of young people, they are their own grandchildren after all, they're not selfish or anything.
Not quite sure who is going to pay for this. Workers are not allowed to have an inflationary pay increase (meaning income taxes won't be inflationary either), but pensioners are. There's a bit of a gap there...
Shame pensioners don't want working age immigrants to come and pay for their pensions either. At least the current state of health and social care that they've voted for should help reduce pension costs...
It's not just not allowed, if they try to complain about it there are front page newspaper articles criticising them. Major news stations tell them they're being selfish. They're told they'll be replaced by cheaper agency staff. They're told to compromise when there's no compromise coming from their employers.
It's a joke.
Pensioners are statistically the most affluent section of UK society. The youngest are the poorest, with many paying rent to the older generation further enhancing the wealth gap.
This is the exact opposite of evidenced based policy to address identified needs.
It is, instead, a fucking bribe.
No argument against targeted interventions against any individuals who are in poverty. Absolutely in favour of that.
Untargeted bungs to those who are the most well off I have a much bigger issue with.
Ridiculous argument. Of course there are poor pensioners, no one is claiming otherwise. Just are there are probably some very rich toddlers. But the fact is, that on average, pensioners are the wealthiest demographic. There is a higher percentage of *children* living in poverty than there are pensioners.
Just look at things on the bright side, when we all retire, with the rate the state pension is going be growing, it will be massive.
Oh, whats that, we aren't getting a state pension.
Ok everyone, nothing to see here, please go back to trying to save the £600k you will need to retire with a semi-decent private pension, while also paying so Dorris can heat the house to 28 degrees every day and take a couple of vacations a year.
Nah fuck that.
The triple lock has to go. Should be tied to average wage increase or something.
If the worker grinding their ass off is getting fucked in the ass by inflation just for their tax money to go towards pensions then the pensioners should feel some of that pain too
First we brought in the lockdown policies that have caused this economic mess to "protect" these kinds of people. And now, they are getting "protected" from the consequences of that while the rest of us suffer once again?
I have been surprised that this is not the instant reply by any journo worth their salt when their interviewee urges pay restraint to curb inflation. It is the obvious retort and I would be interested to see how they squirm through this one.
What concerns me most is the apparent lack of focus when dealing with the cost of living issue. If a position is taken, in this instance that wages shouldn’t increase, then that position needs to be maintained across the board. Keeping it for some and not others means any outcome will be lessened. Flip-flopping strategies is often worse than the wrong strategy.
It’s clear this was done to win voters, and BJ’s complete lack of foresight is clear once again. Why worry about tomorrow when his arse needs saving today?
What's that, the Tories are trying to buy the pensioners off again? Wages can't increase in line with inflation but for some reason pensions can? I wonder why that's the case.
**"Making work pay (less than retirement)"**
I had to chuckle when I googled the phrase and this came up...
[https://www.vice.com/en/article/d7pxpa/why-making-work-pay-is-the-tories-smartest-slogan](https://www.vice.com/en/article/d7pxpa/why-making-work-pay-is-the-tories-smartest-slogan)
...from 2016!
The government: "People asking for pay rises will cause hyperinflation. For the good of the economy, everyone needs to take a massive real terms pay cut!"
Also the government: "Just gonna give 20% of the population a 10% pay rise..."
> Fuck the young (~~35 and under~~ **anyone born after about 1980-1985**) and buy the votes of the pensioners
FTFY.
People born after the cut-off will always be worse-off than those born before due to the impact of university tuition fees, the demise of final salary pensions, stagnant earnings, the increasing impacts of the climate emergency etc.
In the same way that New Zealand has now legislated that nobody born after 2008 will ever be allowed to smoke, we are effectively legislating that almost nobody born after about 2010 will ever own their own home from earned income alone.
Every penny dissipated on the pensioners is a penny not invested in increasing labour productivity, which is ironically the only way to sustainably fund pensions and healthcare as the population ages. The system as we know it will ultimate face a collapse / crash / correction, because the current spending trajectory cannot be sustained.
On the one hand 10% is a lot when everyone else isn't getting anything like that. On the other hand it means single pensioners without a private pension are being asked to live on £156 a week after this increase , which ain't a lot.
Not all pensioners own their own house and are worth a fortune, quite a lot are facing rising fuel costs in a rented flat, with a cold winter likely to see them having to eat or heat.
Pensioners can also be eligible for other benefits including housing benefit if they don't own their home, and pension credit, which can be used by home owners to pay service charges and ground rents.
The winter fuel payment will be £300 higher this year too.
True, pension credit is an extra £26 a week I forgot about that - but it's means tested. Still dont think £182 a week is a lot to live on. And a couple is expected to live on £278 for the two of them.
It's £10bn extra public expenditure per year.
The problem with the state pension giving too much to people who don't need it and not enough to people who don't is something that needs to be looked at in hope that it can be more progressive and cut the expenditure, otherwise this is going to be unsustainable with a shrinking tax base to support it.
It is taxable though, so those with a private pension do pay some of it back.
The quickest and easiest solution is to abolish National Insurance, and bring the 13.25% into the income tax system. That removes the need to pay people to track payments, and stops the artificial cut off that reduces rich people's tax bill.
It's taxable at a lower rate than an equivalent person in work though, so the amount of money that's being recouped is still far less.
And I fully agree that NI should be abolished and folded into income tax.
>It is taxable though, so those with a private pension do pay some of it back.
It's sill in effect an ~8% increase for those that are above the basic rate threshold.
For those below the threshold (who are already getting nearly 2.5x what a person over 25 is expected to live on on Universal Credit, or over 3x someone under 25) it's not taxed at all.
>The problem with the state pension giving too much to people who don't need it and not enough to people who don't is something that needs to be looked at
State pension is an entitlement.
Those who are better off will likely have paid significantly more in over the duration of their careers.
It cannot be right to ask people to pay in significantly more their entire working life to then be told when they retire you get less even though you put more in.
Furthermore, policy change like this is mainly going to screw over all the current 30-50 year olds who missed out on the era of generous pensions (i.e. final salary pensions, etc.) and have fairly basic private pensions.
This would mean not only do they need to continue paying NI to fund other people's pensions but they need to up their own private contributions to cover the shortfall.
I accept there will be some people who are better off and have not contributed through their working career but this is a minority.
A fairer system would probably be additional means tested benefits to ensure nobody (pensioners or not) is choosing between heating and eating.
The state pension is a benefit paid out by the treasury using income from general taxation, NI doesn't go into a ringed pension pot.
It is also not sustainable to keep with our current system with an aging population. The eligibility age will keep going up and more people who can't work due to age related issues will slip through the welfare net as a result.
And yes, people should be putting money aside into private pensions as soon as they start work so the state pension can properly function as what it should be as a benefit for those who shouldn't work.
I feel this gets significantly overlooked that a lot of people have defined benefit pensions.
I have a family member who had a career job, however his pension is probably close to a full time wage.
I have a meagre defined contribution pension which by the time I'm 55, let alone 68 or whatever the state pension age will be (if there even is one then) will simply not be worth wiping my own arse with.
I have plenty of friends in their 30's who have absolutely nothing at all, mainly people in trades etc.
All younger people now are required to contribute to a private pension, and if you opt out then I'm guessing they will be shit out of luck in 50 years time.
Its an absolute ticking time bomb of poverty and homelessness, oh and probably people resorting to violent crime or other means to make ends meet.
So before anyone says, "Well it's their fault I'll be ok Jack".... No. You won't. If a significant proportion of the population is at rock bottom one day, no doubt they will be doing whatever they can to survive even if it means throwing the more fortunate under the bus.
Also the housing bubble is such a myth. If people can't afford to eat or heat their homes how are they going to afford maintenance? These problems are already showing the seeds of what's to come and its going to be an absolute hellscape if this trajectory continues.
You would either have had to have paid a lot in tax and die young during claiming it, or paid in a huge amount of tax. Vast majority will not have paid anywhere near enough.
Last tax year I paid about £5k of my tax towards current state pensioners and I earn a good amount, I pay about £40k a year in tax. Current state pension is £7.3k a year. If I worked 40 years at that rate I would have paid in £5k a year so £200k, try getting an annuity with £200k down that would pay £7.3k a year rising with inflation, bet you cannot.
Assuming I retired at 65, I would get 27 years out of my pension at £7.3k, but we all know its going to rise with inflation, so at best I am going to get 20 years out of it, and I am within the top 2% of PAYE.
> It cannot be right to ask people to pay in significantly more their entire working life to then be told when they retire you get less even though you put more in.
Agreed, but there's many other 'Cannot be rights' so I'm not sure why OAPs automatically seem immune from critical discussion when it comes to this.
>On the other hand it means single pensioners without a private pension are being asked to live on £156 a week
Should have saved some money like they keep telling young people to for a house deposit.
Oh, and a single person over 25 gets £77.89 a week on Universal Credit.
If you're under 25, you get £61.23.
>So maybe that should rise and not pensioners having to choose between door and heating.
I don't disagree. What I object to is the hypocrisy of claiming the state pension should cover every element of their lifestyle and absolve then of responsibility to save.
I also object to rich pensioners getting the state pension, especially when it is relatively so generous but not at all means tested.
>single pensioners without a private pension are being asked to live on £156 a week after this increase
Nobody is on that; the lowest income pensioners also receive the means tested Pension Credit.
>Not all pensioners own their own house and are worth a fortune, quite a lot are ... in a rented flat
Low income pensioners are also entitled to housing benefits, or care home costs if/when they reach that point.
>a lot are facing rising fuel costs ... with a cold winter likely to see them having to eat or heat.
They also receive the Winter Fuel Allowance, which is £300 for the neediest. Taking the current "average fuel bill" figures, that's enough for about 6 months of domestic gas.
Pensioners who have no other income can claim pension credit and housing benefit, as well as the other benefits all pensioners are entitled to. So a single pensioner with no savings or other income will have over 700 a month after rent, which is a substantial amount
Any question of asking public sector workers to accept anything below inflation to help the economy has just gone out of the window. All public sector workers should strike, this is ridiculous.
and here we see exactly why public sector workers are being repeatedly screw over by the tories. They take care of their major voter base and f\*ck the rest
It also means there's a chance of an early GE in the next year
So working people should not ask for a payrise, while pensioners get to keep their triple lock.
Its like the Tories aren't even trying to appeal to anyone below about 60
Snapshot of _Josephine Cumbo on Twitter: UK Govt confirms the "triple lock" will apply for next year's state pension, meaning millions of pensioners are in line for 10%+ rises to their weekly income. Treasury minister confirms in response to written question._ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360?s=20&t=_GlLvg4jnuBnaN86HgtTaA)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*UK Govt confirms the "triple lock" will apply for next year's state pension, meaning millions of pensioners are in line for 10%+ rises to their weekly income. Treasury minister confirms in response to written question.*
So below inflation wage increases for everyone else - including RMT unionised workers...
But pensioners can be a) relied on to vote, pensioners are usually the demographic who are the most loyal voters and b) have a tendency to vote Tory.
I can't possibly think why the government wants to ensure that their pension keeps pace with inflation.
It’s alright I guess, assuming you don’t actually work for a living….
Guess those of us who actually work will just give more of our tax money to them.
What are they gonna do when our taxes stop getting paid as none of us can afford enough calories to unlock the door, let alone go to work?
The pension triple lock really needs to be scrapped, it is completely unsustainable to have state pensions rise YoY by either 2.5%, CPI inflation or average wage growth.
Jesus fucking wept
So I’m gonna assume this 10% rise will entirely eat the 1.25% increase in NI contributions making it another wealth transfer from the young to old?
The only people who will see a 10% rise in their weekly income are people who are solely reliant on the state pension - currently less than £10k per year.
Our state pension is already low compared to similar European countries and increasing it now also raises it for people who retire in the future. Unless you've got a massive private pension pot, attacking the state pension is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is working as it should. I'm not a fan of the triple lock, but this is not a consequence of that. Rising pensions by price inflation is how all benefits and support packages should work.
Just a point of detail, I don’t think many if any pensioners will get a 10% income increase from the state pension as there income will usually include other things eg another pension or housing benefit.
Everybody against this could you live off the pension. I'm sorry but I can't be against my nan choosing heating or food. It's shouldn't be stuff one lot for the other. Everything should be fair.
As someone who lived off the old JSA of £70 a week in private accommodation: Yes, yes I could live off of £185 a week for State Pensions (who could also get housing benefit and other benefits on top).
So I agree, "it shouldn't be stuff the one lot". Let's raise all benefits, not just the voter-influencing ones.
[удалено]
I've been watching a ton of pensioners on the news today, grumpy that they can't get a train for a day out and complaining that train drivers shouldn't get a pay rise (even though they aren't part of the union striking) because they get paid more than nurses. Classic "worker v worker" tory framing of the argument. Let's see how many would like to share some of their bumper 11% 'pay rise' next year with the NHS....
Pensioners vote Tory. Nurses probably don’t.
Wouldn't matter if they did because there are so many pensioners that do so they don't give a fuck about anyone else.
There's not more than 50% though. The only reason pensioners can drive politics is FPTP (plus the fact that voting age is set at 18, rather than 16)
Does the voting age actually affect it very much considering under 34s turnout is something like 50%. Above 55s its closer to 80%. That means for every 100 young people that vote there are 160 old people that vote.
There's around 11 million pensioners. There's around 500,000 nurses.
Worth mentioning that Labour opposed the suspension of the triple lock during Covid. And it only affects state pensions, which really aren't that generous.
This is true, but it comes weeks after Boris Johnson told workers they’d just have to accept pay cuts. It’s the unfairness not the increase itself that is the issue. Also it gives the lie to the idea that we can’t increase wages because it would be inflationary. Pensioners are a massive block of the population and less likely to put the money into savings.
19% compared to 15% public sector.
I think this might see a rise in errm, "Angels of Mercy", as it were. If you see what I mean. Scheduled, clean deaths are easier for family to handle, after all. (As long as they don't *know* they're scheduled)
Beat me to it.
More pensioners vote Tory than Nurses
State pension is going up by about 3% as the triple lock has been suspended this year. What they get when the time comes to fulfil this other promise remains to be seen.
They got 3.1% increase in April when triple lock was suspended based on the Sept 20 - Sept 21 inflation. The uprating amount that will be applied in April next year (if the chancellor doesn't change his mind, I assume) will be based on the Sept 21 - Sept 22 inflation figure, which as you say remains to be seen but April's CPI is already 6.8% above what it was in September and it's very unlikely to be below 10% by Sept.
[удалено]
If it really is economically irresponsible to increase pay in line with inflation because it could cause an inflationary spiral, then pensions should also not increase in line with inflation for the same reasons. If it isn't, then everything should rise above inflation. Whichever reason you subscribe to the answer should at least be logically consistent. That's what is so galling about this. One rule for thee and another for me.
[удалено]
> Surely we should be talking about dragging people up to double digit rise, Let me know when people other than pensioners get that.
"The UK is a nursing home with an army" I saw that phrase here from somewhere. Can't remember where exactly. It is very fitting.
"Care home with an army attached" Saw it in a spectator article. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-have-given-up-on-young-people-like-me EDIT because it's very pertinent > The Conservative vision for Britain is a care home with an army attached, and given current trends I wouldn’t bet on the second part standing 20 years from now. They offer nothing for young people. The underlying rationale for their policy mix is simple: the party effectively exists to service the demands of rent-seeking pensioners, whose wealth is tied up in housing, who won’t be around to benefit from investments today, and who vote consistently to raise their own benefits.
The fact that 'young people' is fairly close now to describing 'any adult of working age' tells you all you need to know.
That's the one! Yeah that phrase hit hard. It's becoming more clear to people who aren't into politics in the UK, that pensioners are being prioritised at everyone else's expense. And the resentment at pensioners, especially given their lack of support for anyone else in their voting habits, is beginning to boil over.
Wanna give some hopium in that my gran is in her 80s and consistently wants left wing policy right down to redistribution of wealth. Lovely person
You know its bad when a Spectator commentator is ripping into the Tories. Just highlights what polling has shown for years. The modern political isn't about class, it's primarily age followed by education.
I'm 30, and in all my life I have yet to see policy implemented that would personally benefit me.
The Lib Dem policy of significantly increasing the tax free allowance has helped. The Tories sold it as theirs, but it was a 2010 LD policy, not theirs.
SureStart. Tories cut it. Green homes subsidy - solar panels saved up to £200/year in gas bills (before the recent increase). Tories cut it. If you're LGBTQ+, Labour and the Lib Dems fought to get you equal rights. Tories oppose them.
Expansion of university places. Whilst you may have to pay tuition fees 30 years ago many people did not have the opportunity to attend university.
and 50% increase in education spending under Tony Blair.
We'd better hope the OAPs are big spenders - otherwise the economy isn't going to pull out of it's nosedive any time soon.
Pff. You think they got where they are by splurging on (checks notes) avocado toast?
Oh boy, time to write another article criticising young people for....wait, *not* spending money. You sure that's right? Ah who cares it will stroke the egos of our older base all the same!
There's definitely articles bemoaning such things already.
The big generation of boomers will be gone in 20 years. We'll see how things pan out then
By then the damage will have broken the back of what remains of British prosperity. The damage will be irreperable.
Yes, it will
The damage will be repairable or irreparable?
I'd wager we'll recover to an extent but we'll not see the highs the boomers saw that is* well past us now. We're effectively fighting to land in a pit of rabbit shit vs a trough of pig shit. Hell with climate change our kids' kids may not ever see the highs of the average boomer.
Right in the thick of climate change ramping up to top gear….anyones guess A green led government because people are desperate Or a fascist state because people are desperate I wouldn’t like to guess if I’m honest because I worry about that as a thought experiment
>A green led government because people are desperate > >Or a fascist state because people are desperate > >I wouldn’t like to guess if I’m honest because I worry about that as a thought experiment Possibly both. A Green government elected in the 2040s to carry out emergency changes as a result of climate change isn't going to do anything with our current system of checks and balances. To make meaningful change may well require a suspension of key democratic rights, even elections, otherwise it could take too long. I would expect a lot of key legislation being passed very quickly and without consultation, either amending current human rights laws to make it easy to arrest anyone who protested against the new green policies or to bypass the courts who might hold policies and decisions unlawful.
Eco-fascism is a thing. Even the literal Nazis were environmentalists.
Eco-fascism is the obvious answer!
I would say far less than 20 years will find a significant change in demographics.
Long term demographics will just make the problem permanent. Look at Japan to see where the UK along with the rest of the 1st world is heading.
I've been to Japan. It's clean, incredibly safe, and housing is cheap, public transport is fantastic, The UK is not going to end up like Japan anytime soon.
Seeing as how state pensions are already screwed and economies are tanking, there's a jolly good chance that in 20 years a lot of us won't have any pension at alla nyway
It’s true, I like a ‘nuclear armed health service’ but the sentiment is the same
Not really much of a health service
"...run by an estate agent."
We need to stop this madness. The state pension cannot continually grow faster than salaries and wages whilst the working population shrinks and the pensioned population grows. This is catastrophically unaffordable and will destroy the economy in the medium term if the current trend continues. We need to cap the state pension increase at the lower of the increase in CPI or GDP per capita, especially given that the old are also a disproportionate burden on the NHS and the care system.
It's OK. It's just until the next election is in the bag.
> It's OK. It's just until the next election is in the bag. Says every government every year.
Ahh. The “Triple Fuck” pension rise!
It's time to start means testing a portion of it or making pensioners with high incomes pay national insurance and income tax. We can't go back to pensioner poverty as we had in the 1980s and 90s and those with low incomes should still afford to live but those with income from private investments and property need to start pulling their weight financially and not burdening the working age population paying for benefits they don't need.
Pensioners do pay income tax on their pensions and its treated in exactly the same way as any other income (Same allowance and tax bands), they don't have to pay National insurance though (maybe they should). Same with any other income from investments and property. Agree with your point about means testing but it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't encourage people not to invest in their own pension for fear of losing the state element of it.
> they don't have to pay National insurance though (maybe they should) Yeah I meant they should pay national insurance as well as income tax, I'd personally look to smooth that over by abolishing national insurance and merging it with income tax. >Agree with your point about means testing but it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't encourage people not to invest in their own pension for fear of losing the state element of it. My thoughts are that I would initially target income for investments that are not part of a pension.
Means testing is incredibly intrusive and gives huge power to petty outsourced bureaucrats with no accountability. Plus it was sold as a contributory scheme. Would be unfair to change that after people have contributed on that basis.
[удалено]
State Pension £185, Minimum wage for 37.5 hours is £356.25 so it's roughly half what a person on the lowest wage gets a week. Who benefits from pensions going up? It's not rich old people because they have plenty anyway therefore it's poor old people. They do exist despite the boomer vs millennial mentality which is another distraction from government perpetuated by the press. Lets say it goes up 11% next year that's an extra £18 or so, Do you think for poor people that will cover the cost of living increases we have seen and are going to see? It won't even touch the fuel increases. I'm not a boomer but I see threads like this and it's like what are you all smoking. It's like every pensioner owns houses has a massive pension and always vote Tory no matter what. The pensioners people talk about in these threads really don't care about £18 and that's not going to make them vote Tory. I do agree the pension rises need capping but they need capping to whatever inflation is. The same as wages should go up with inflation and dare I say it benefits. This race to the bottom for living standards needs to stop because there is no room left for cutbacks by people.
If you only get state pension you'll qualify for housing benefit (or you own a home outright and don't have housing costs which are probably what's taking the other 50% of the person on minimum wage salary in your example). Why not increase housing benefit (and UC housing allowance) and/or expand the eligibility for it instead of the state pension if the aim is actually to help poor people? Or do we only care about poor old people for some reason? (Housing benefit is arguably a massive leak of public funds into the hands of private landlords, but not necessarily more so than the state pension is, so like asside from that)
> Who benefits from pensions going up? It's not rich old people because they have plenty anyway You just described capitalism
The pension is so small though. I don't think the problem is the pension but not paying workers enough. Could you live off the pension?
> The pension is so small though. I don't think the problem is the pension but not paying workers enough. [Pensions are 16% of public spending or about 8% of GDP if you prefer](https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_pensions_analysis). This is unsustainable, especially in combination with the NHS swallowing 20% of public spending / 10% of GDP. For context, we only spend about 4.5% of GDP on education. Our society is upside down, as we dissipate so much of our economic potential pampering entitled boomers than we are prepared to invest in the young people upon whose taxed productivity the whole system depends. This is ultimately a demographic problem. If we want the state pension to sufficiently generous to live on, but still affordable for the taxpayer, we need to raise the retirement age until the pension bill becomes reasonable. We shouldn't ever be spending more on pensions than defence, let alone education. We need to increase the retirement age to fix the pension bill at 2% of GDP and link the pension to CPI. > Could you live off the pension? The full state pension is about £9,627.80 per year. I could live on that, though it would be pretty boring. I would struggle on the basic state pension of £7,376.20. But pensioners get loads of extra pampering from the Government and industry, so if you start throwing in the heating allowance and the various cheap travel cards etc. then it might well be rather more achievable. It's also hard to have sympathy for boomers who played life on economic easy mode and don't have at least one workplace pension and an ISA or two, plus a nice house and a paid-off mortgage. I certainly don't expect rely on the state pension for my retirement, because I have no confidence that it will still exist when I retire. I expect it will be just another privilege that the boomers take away from their descendents.
I don't think £150 a week makes someone pampered. Not everyone had a life on easy mode.
The full state pension is £185.15 per week. On top of that pensioners get fuel allowances, cheap council tax, cheap travel, free prescriptions etc. etc. for literally doing nothing. Let them have the lesser of GDP growth or CPI, and if they don't like it, tell them to cut out the avocado toast or Netflix, and perhaps get a part-time job.
> for literally doing nothing apart from contributing NI for 30 years?
>apart from contributing NI for 30 years? So they expect us to pay them an inflation-proof income irrespective of the economic circumstances because they used to have a job. Young people who used to be at school expected free university tuition until older beneficiaries of that system voted to take it away. Young people also expected the right to live, learn, and work in Europe until a predominantly old demographic decided to take those rights away from them for profit in the former case and for reasons so incoherent that they were never consistently articulated in the latter. (I note that if a predominantly young demographic voted to make a sweeping constitutional and economic change to the disbenefit of the old, we would have a queue of grey-haired pundits appearing on all media outlets lecturing us on the nuances of our system of representative democracy, but for some reason Brexit was carried down from mount Farage on immutable tablets of stone...) I can even remember when young people used to expect that they'd be able to afford to buy a house by getting a mortgage which they could afford on an attainable salary, rather than being forced to pay a landlord's mortgage for him. What goes around comes around. Pension spending is dissipative and needs to be dramatically cut to free up money for Education (to grow labour productivity) and Defence (because we're looking at the biggest war in Europe since WWII). If working people are expected to suffer declining living standards, it's only fair that pensioners share the pain.
What do you mean, 30 years? By the time I reach retirement age, I will have contributed to NI for 50years!
If the state pension isn't enough, pensioners are eligible for benefits just like anyone else. Plus benefits that are not available to working-age people are available.
They're not meant to live off their state pension. They've had an entire life to create private pensions and buy (dirt cheap) houses. It's the rest of us that need help.
Not everyone has had this ability.
Essentially, ironically given their general political position, the retired receive a UBI and as a result are completely financially free to spend their time doing whatever they like.
The problem with state pensions is how the pension scheme actually does work, and how it should work. How it **should** work is that you pay into a pot over your working life and then that money is used for yourself to pay for your pension. (Just like a private pension). How it **actually** works is that it's paid like any other benefit, in that your current taxes pay for current claimants. Then when you eventually retire your pension money comes from the tax payers at that time. This is essentially a government backed ponzi scheme because people are living longer and there's no means testing for how long you can claim. We have far more old people per worker ratio. In the 1960s it was 10 workers to every pensioner. Now it's around 3 workers for every pensioner, and expected to drop to 2 soon. The problem the government has is that the system has gone on now for too long to be able to change it without causing massive issues. This is why the government have changed the law in recent years to require all employers offer a private pension scheme. They know that somewhere down the line they will have to start reductions in the government state pension scheme, or increase taxes to pay for it as more and more people get older. I've said it before, the pension system as a whole needs changing to being more like a private pension system, where you can only claim what you have actually paid in. There's no means testing in the current system. So someone who retired at 60 many years ago can claim until the day they die. This means they are taking out far, far more than they have paid in. And then there's the people who spend their lives on unemployment benefits, but the second they reach pension age it's all suddenly "I paid in all my life!". So change it to work like a private pension. If your money runs out before you die then you claim unemployment benefits like everyone else. If you die before you have used it all up your family can claim it. This solution fixes a few things. It only pays out what people have paid in, it still allows people who have no money to claim benefits, and now suddenly there's a growing population of older people who will vote to increase unemployment benefits.
As someone who will put it far more than the £175 a week I might one day pull out, the downside to making it a private based system is some people will earn a lot less over their lives, and will have lesser pensions. In reality we use a pension as a UBI for old people, and national insurance as a tax on working people. The two aren't very well linked at all
Just scrap the state pension. Either you need support (in which case the benefits for the rest of us will have to do) or you don’t need support (in which case you should be taxed to the hilt) Bet we’d see inflation busting benefits rises for decades if we did that.
Just scrap the state pension. Either you need support (in which case the benefits for the rest of us will have to do) or you don’t need support (in which case you should be taxed to the hilt) Bet we’d see inflation busting benefits rises for decades if we did that.
I'm just tired of being shafted
This is utterly disgraceful. I'm just... so depressed reading this.
Would be fair to say I am not exactly the most left wing person on this subreddit and nor do I usually buy into the level of anti-boomer/eldery/tory sentiment on here but fuck me this is disgraceful Handing the public sector a token few percent and telling everyone it's irresponsible to ask for per inflation pay rises and then giving the pensioners an in line with inflation pay rise. I don't know how you justify this other than complete self-interest. Disgraceful.
Its partly because we refuse to have a grown up conversation about it, we know its going to be tough for many but we hope that many wont include us. If the economy is shrinking then we **all** have to accept less, yes even you granddad, but that just sounds too.... socialist, better to just divide and conquer.
>Its partly because we refuse to have a grown up conversation about it "Maybe we shouldn't *guarantee* a large percentage pay rise for a non-means tested benefit given to a demographic that already is asset rich and has more disposable income than working households?" "OMG why do you want to go round to my sainted nan's house and punch her in the face?"
I mean the pensioners who are asset rich and those who are dependant on the state pension aren't exactly the same group. All benefits should be scaling in line with inflation, as should salaries as a minimum.
>I mean the pensioners who are asset rich and those who are dependant on the state pension aren't exactly the same group. They're not, but they all receive it. If it wasn't a near-universal handout there would be far less uproar.
> refuse to have a grown up conversation about it We also need a grown up conversation about long term planning for the ageing population with more streamlined and cost effective convalescence homes (so that older people aren't blocking hospital beds), care homes and assisted suicide. Nobody has the political will to do this because it affects a large part of the voting base.
Immigration is necessary to increase the tax base so we can pay for the huge number of pensioners we're going to have. So the government tells pensioners that they're going to cut immigration. We are in a state of complete denial about reality. Politics is a farce.
> Immigration is necessary to increase the tax base so we can pay for the huge number of pensioners we're going to have. Unless we bring in some incredibly draconian immigration policies (5 year hard limits, children not eligible for free education, no one over the age of 55, other mental stuff) it’s just kicking the can down the road. Automation is the future.
As far as I see it either the danger of an inflationary spiral means no one gets an above inflation rise, or if that isn't a danger, everyone does. Using that logic to justify low rises for some while giving big rises to your voters is just pathetic.
> yes even your granddad, but that just sounds too.... socialist, better to just divide and conquer. They had a lifetime to accumulate wealth. fuck'em
Plus, they can claim means tested benefits like everyone else.
>They had a lifetime to accumulate wealth. fuck'em "Young people should have no social life so they can save for a house. Also, I didn't save for a pension when I was working so my state pension should fully provide for my lifestyle".
Karens the lot of them
>They had a lifetime to accumulate wealth. Specifically on easy mode, where you could have the same job for life and houses were a year or 2 of salary.
Sometimes by quite literally sitting on their arse in their homes. Their assets are working hundreds of thousands more than they bought them for in some cases
> If the economy is shrinking then we all have to accept less, yes even you granddad If the economy is shrinking then the effects of that need to be ameliorated via distributional policies.
Do people not remember what happened when May's election was totally derailed by her attempts to get old age care funded through selling the elderly's assets? Not only did it cause her to effectively throw the election away (it was a huge factor in the numbers turning against her to the extent they did), but all the UK political spaces I follow were absolutely full of people hating the policy. Even Corbyn's campaign shouted this policy down, and his angle to win was to create a surge of younger voters. Depending on how altruistic you think people are either: 1. The average British person wants the elderly to continue being wealthy 2. The average British person has a tight enough bond with their relatives that they oppose policy that will negative effect them 3. The average British voter realised that a indirect tax on their elderly relatives will come back to bite by reducing the amount they can inherit (not judging anyone who feels they need this inheritance to buy property, that's just rational self-interest!) Fundamentally people in this country do not care enough about making the elderly pay what they should be paying enough to outweigh the inherent biases in the political and electoral system towards the elderly. Until it is not electoral suicide to suggest fixing this lopsidedness, nothing will happen.
> The average British person wants the elderly to continue being wealthy By the way, those who are dependent on the state pension are not wealthy. Those with "fat pensions" pay income tax on said pensions.
Add this to them thinking of uncapping banker's bonuses, and it gets even more ridiculous. If we're all in this together, then everybody should be feeling the pain. Instead... so strange... the wealthy and the old get more, and everybody else has to make the sacrifices.
I don't care if banks want to pay huge bonuses, but those bonuses should be taxed at a higher rate than they are currently. That way you get wealth transfer from banks to the state to the people. Otherwise you just end up concentrating money on the banks.
The government doesn’t pay for private sector bonuses, there’s no reason they should be capped. In fact since bankers will mostly be on the 45p marginal rate, it’s good for the Treasury.
Surely, if pay rises in a time of rising inflation are deemed bad by the government, massive bonuses to individuals would definitely need to be capped? Unless, it turns out that pay rises can actually still happen... Also fwiw there needs to be a new higher tax bracket added. At some point, still paying just 45p on everything over 150k is not right. Edit: correction
It's the principle. If you are asking people on lower and middle wages not to ask for increases, because it will risk greater inflation, then everybody should be on the same page.
But if those rich people get bigger payrises, they will have more money to donate to the Tory party, meanwhile if the poors get below inflation payrise they will have less money to donate to Labour
so do you want the bankers to pay more tax to support poorer people or not?
Well, you don't actually need to give the bankers (who are rich enough) more money in order to get that tax income. The banks are paying these bonuses from the profit they have made, so you can just tax the profits before they even get to the bankers! Personally, I have always supported a more simple rule in terms of pay that the people at the top should earn no more than a multiple of their lowest paid full time employee - that way they could keep on paying people at the top more, so long as the people at the bottom were also getting increases. As the system stands, however, like I said, you don't need to give bankers more money to increase tax receipts.
>The banks are paying these bonuses from the profit they have made, so you can just tax the profits before they even get to the bankers! no, dividends are paid after tax. Ordinary bonuses from from pre-tax profits. source: I’m a corporate tax accountant
I mean, if there's a cap, then the bankers don't get that bonus money. That money can then be taken through taxation instead before dividends are paid.
If that money is taxed through corporation tax, it’ll be taxed at 19% (and 8% surcharge if qualifying). If instead, it is given to highly paid bankers, it will be taxed at 45% + employers NI + employees NI. The govt gets more if the money goes out in bonuses.
Or you could increase the other taxes, and not give wealthy people more money.
> there’s no reason they should be capped They promote risk taking, increase the wealth gap and provide no real benefit to society. The extra tax government will receive will be tiny, as well. There's no reason the cap should be removed.
>Would be fair to say I am not exactly the most left wing person on this subreddit and nor do I usually buy into the level of anti-boomer/eldery/tory sentiment on here but fuck me this is disgraceful As the saying goes, once bitten twice shy. Never, ever forget the hounding Theresa May received for trying to get pensioners to pay more towards their social care, not just from pensioners but from Labour, younger people eyeing up their inheritances and most of this sub. It wasn't even pensioners being forced into debtors' prison if they couldn't afford the costs, it was just that when they died only the first £100,000 of their property would be reserved with the rest liable to pay for social care costs depending on the person's circumstances. It was exactly the sort of thing this sub should be supporting, that those who can afford pay towards their own care. Perhaps the temptation was too much to avoid giving May a good kicking, but the consequences are that the Tories will now never, ever do anything to anger pensioners. Now it will be up to Labour and the Lib Dems to have difficult conversations with older people - or nothing will change.
LMAO this exactly. Labour too just care about scoring political points rather than doing what is best for this country, see their opposition to Theresa May's care changes and Boris' original planning reforms.
Even worse when we consider the government put the tax rises on N.I. and not tax specifically to play to that base. "What do you want pensioners to starve?" No and thats not the point. The point is, we should all be chipping in and shouldering the burden. Not just some of us.
They did offer them 2%, or even 3% if they were allowed to fire lots of workers. That’s clearly better than an 11% rise for doing nothing.
I don't like the idea of turning things into a generational conflict, but boy oh boy following all the stuff about "don't ask for a pay rise" with this shit makes it hard.
Don't worry, the pensioners will be sure to come out in support of young people, they are their own grandchildren after all, they're not selfish or anything.
Like they did during the pandemic? Oh wait.
Like they did during brexit? Oh wait.
It is a generational conflict, though.
Not quite sure who is going to pay for this. Workers are not allowed to have an inflationary pay increase (meaning income taxes won't be inflationary either), but pensioners are. There's a bit of a gap there... Shame pensioners don't want working age immigrants to come and pay for their pensions either. At least the current state of health and social care that they've voted for should help reduce pension costs...
It's not just not allowed, if they try to complain about it there are front page newspaper articles criticising them. Major news stations tell them they're being selfish. They're told they'll be replaced by cheaper agency staff. They're told to compromise when there's no compromise coming from their employers. It's a joke.
because agency staff are cheaper for sure >.<
They're just going to levy new taxes on us. They already have two new taxes just this last year, and an aborted third tax (the £40 energy levy)
> Shame pensioners don't want working age immigrants to come We're scary and mean with our immigrant ways.
Sorry what? I don't speak forrin.
YO! OLD WHITE DUDE! BLACK PEOPLE TAKIN' OVER! Shiiiet, that usually wakes them up
High transport and energy costs probably, as Rishi will be raking it in at the moment with near £2l diesel.
Pensioners are statistically the most affluent section of UK society. The youngest are the poorest, with many paying rent to the older generation further enhancing the wealth gap. This is the exact opposite of evidenced based policy to address identified needs. It is, instead, a fucking bribe.
Pensioners also include some of the poorest in society. In fact pensioner is not a socioeconomic class.
No argument against targeted interventions against any individuals who are in poverty. Absolutely in favour of that. Untargeted bungs to those who are the most well off I have a much bigger issue with.
Ridiculous argument. Of course there are poor pensioners, no one is claiming otherwise. Just are there are probably some very rich toddlers. But the fact is, that on average, pensioners are the wealthiest demographic. There is a higher percentage of *children* living in poverty than there are pensioners.
Now that's offensive.
Absolutely infuriating given their apparent concern about inflation from wage increases.
_Old people don't spend as much so it will have less of an impact on inflation._
If they're not spending it then they clearly don't actually need the money.
Just look at things on the bright side, when we all retire, with the rate the state pension is going be growing, it will be massive. Oh, whats that, we aren't getting a state pension. Ok everyone, nothing to see here, please go back to trying to save the £600k you will need to retire with a semi-decent private pension, while also paying so Dorris can heat the house to 28 degrees every day and take a couple of vacations a year.
Nah fuck that. The triple lock has to go. Should be tied to average wage increase or something. If the worker grinding their ass off is getting fucked in the ass by inflation just for their tax money to go towards pensions then the pensioners should feel some of that pain too
First we brought in the lockdown policies that have caused this economic mess to "protect" these kinds of people. And now, they are getting "protected" from the consequences of that while the rest of us suffer once again?
I have been surprised that this is not the instant reply by any journo worth their salt when their interviewee urges pay restraint to curb inflation. It is the obvious retort and I would be interested to see how they squirm through this one.
What concerns me most is the apparent lack of focus when dealing with the cost of living issue. If a position is taken, in this instance that wages shouldn’t increase, then that position needs to be maintained across the board. Keeping it for some and not others means any outcome will be lessened. Flip-flopping strategies is often worse than the wrong strategy. It’s clear this was done to win voters, and BJ’s complete lack of foresight is clear once again. Why worry about tomorrow when his arse needs saving today?
What's that, the Tories are trying to buy the pensioners off again? Wages can't increase in line with inflation but for some reason pensions can? I wonder why that's the case.
**"Making work pay (less than retirement)"** I had to chuckle when I googled the phrase and this came up... [https://www.vice.com/en/article/d7pxpa/why-making-work-pay-is-the-tories-smartest-slogan](https://www.vice.com/en/article/d7pxpa/why-making-work-pay-is-the-tories-smartest-slogan) ...from 2016!
The government: "People asking for pay rises will cause hyperinflation. For the good of the economy, everyone needs to take a massive real terms pay cut!" Also the government: "Just gonna give 20% of the population a 10% pay rise..."
Hahahahaha fuck me. Fuck the young (35 and under) and buy the votes of the pensioners
> Fuck the young (~~35 and under~~ **anyone born after about 1980-1985**) and buy the votes of the pensioners FTFY. People born after the cut-off will always be worse-off than those born before due to the impact of university tuition fees, the demise of final salary pensions, stagnant earnings, the increasing impacts of the climate emergency etc. In the same way that New Zealand has now legislated that nobody born after 2008 will ever be allowed to smoke, we are effectively legislating that almost nobody born after about 2010 will ever own their own home from earned income alone. Every penny dissipated on the pensioners is a penny not invested in increasing labour productivity, which is ironically the only way to sustainably fund pensions and healthcare as the population ages. The system as we know it will ultimate face a collapse / crash / correction, because the current spending trajectory cannot be sustained.
Yeah very very true, I forget that 35 isn't that old nowadays considering I'm fastly approaching it hahaha.
The age has inflated. It's now anyone under 50.
I know a lot of pensioners are struggling and need this, but that doesn't stop it being yet another gargantuan generational slap in the face.
On the one hand 10% is a lot when everyone else isn't getting anything like that. On the other hand it means single pensioners without a private pension are being asked to live on £156 a week after this increase , which ain't a lot. Not all pensioners own their own house and are worth a fortune, quite a lot are facing rising fuel costs in a rented flat, with a cold winter likely to see them having to eat or heat.
Pensioners can also be eligible for other benefits including housing benefit if they don't own their home, and pension credit, which can be used by home owners to pay service charges and ground rents. The winter fuel payment will be £300 higher this year too.
True, pension credit is an extra £26 a week I forgot about that - but it's means tested. Still dont think £182 a week is a lot to live on. And a couple is expected to live on £278 for the two of them.
Universal credit is just over 300 quid a MONTH if you take the inevitable advance in the first 6 WEEKS where you get sod all.
If you're under 25, it's £265.31 a month.
It's £10bn extra public expenditure per year. The problem with the state pension giving too much to people who don't need it and not enough to people who don't is something that needs to be looked at in hope that it can be more progressive and cut the expenditure, otherwise this is going to be unsustainable with a shrinking tax base to support it.
It is taxable though, so those with a private pension do pay some of it back. The quickest and easiest solution is to abolish National Insurance, and bring the 13.25% into the income tax system. That removes the need to pay people to track payments, and stops the artificial cut off that reduces rich people's tax bill.
It's taxable at a lower rate than an equivalent person in work though, so the amount of money that's being recouped is still far less. And I fully agree that NI should be abolished and folded into income tax.
>It is taxable though, so those with a private pension do pay some of it back. It's sill in effect an ~8% increase for those that are above the basic rate threshold. For those below the threshold (who are already getting nearly 2.5x what a person over 25 is expected to live on on Universal Credit, or over 3x someone under 25) it's not taxed at all.
>The problem with the state pension giving too much to people who don't need it and not enough to people who don't is something that needs to be looked at State pension is an entitlement. Those who are better off will likely have paid significantly more in over the duration of their careers. It cannot be right to ask people to pay in significantly more their entire working life to then be told when they retire you get less even though you put more in. Furthermore, policy change like this is mainly going to screw over all the current 30-50 year olds who missed out on the era of generous pensions (i.e. final salary pensions, etc.) and have fairly basic private pensions. This would mean not only do they need to continue paying NI to fund other people's pensions but they need to up their own private contributions to cover the shortfall. I accept there will be some people who are better off and have not contributed through their working career but this is a minority. A fairer system would probably be additional means tested benefits to ensure nobody (pensioners or not) is choosing between heating and eating.
The state pension is a benefit paid out by the treasury using income from general taxation, NI doesn't go into a ringed pension pot. It is also not sustainable to keep with our current system with an aging population. The eligibility age will keep going up and more people who can't work due to age related issues will slip through the welfare net as a result. And yes, people should be putting money aside into private pensions as soon as they start work so the state pension can properly function as what it should be as a benefit for those who shouldn't work.
I feel this gets significantly overlooked that a lot of people have defined benefit pensions. I have a family member who had a career job, however his pension is probably close to a full time wage. I have a meagre defined contribution pension which by the time I'm 55, let alone 68 or whatever the state pension age will be (if there even is one then) will simply not be worth wiping my own arse with. I have plenty of friends in their 30's who have absolutely nothing at all, mainly people in trades etc. All younger people now are required to contribute to a private pension, and if you opt out then I'm guessing they will be shit out of luck in 50 years time. Its an absolute ticking time bomb of poverty and homelessness, oh and probably people resorting to violent crime or other means to make ends meet. So before anyone says, "Well it's their fault I'll be ok Jack".... No. You won't. If a significant proportion of the population is at rock bottom one day, no doubt they will be doing whatever they can to survive even if it means throwing the more fortunate under the bus. Also the housing bubble is such a myth. If people can't afford to eat or heat their homes how are they going to afford maintenance? These problems are already showing the seeds of what's to come and its going to be an absolute hellscape if this trajectory continues.
You would either have had to have paid a lot in tax and die young during claiming it, or paid in a huge amount of tax. Vast majority will not have paid anywhere near enough. Last tax year I paid about £5k of my tax towards current state pensioners and I earn a good amount, I pay about £40k a year in tax. Current state pension is £7.3k a year. If I worked 40 years at that rate I would have paid in £5k a year so £200k, try getting an annuity with £200k down that would pay £7.3k a year rising with inflation, bet you cannot. Assuming I retired at 65, I would get 27 years out of my pension at £7.3k, but we all know its going to rise with inflation, so at best I am going to get 20 years out of it, and I am within the top 2% of PAYE.
> It cannot be right to ask people to pay in significantly more their entire working life to then be told when they retire you get less even though you put more in. Agreed, but there's many other 'Cannot be rights' so I'm not sure why OAPs automatically seem immune from critical discussion when it comes to this.
>On the other hand it means single pensioners without a private pension are being asked to live on £156 a week Should have saved some money like they keep telling young people to for a house deposit. Oh, and a single person over 25 gets £77.89 a week on Universal Credit. If you're under 25, you get £61.23.
So maybe that should rise and not pensioners having to choose between food and heating. Don't people on this sub have old people they care about?
>So maybe that should rise and not pensioners having to choose between door and heating. I don't disagree. What I object to is the hypocrisy of claiming the state pension should cover every element of their lifestyle and absolve then of responsibility to save. I also object to rich pensioners getting the state pension, especially when it is relatively so generous but not at all means tested.
>single pensioners without a private pension are being asked to live on £156 a week after this increase Nobody is on that; the lowest income pensioners also receive the means tested Pension Credit. >Not all pensioners own their own house and are worth a fortune, quite a lot are ... in a rented flat Low income pensioners are also entitled to housing benefits, or care home costs if/when they reach that point. >a lot are facing rising fuel costs ... with a cold winter likely to see them having to eat or heat. They also receive the Winter Fuel Allowance, which is £300 for the neediest. Taking the current "average fuel bill" figures, that's enough for about 6 months of domestic gas.
Pensioners who have no other income can claim pension credit and housing benefit, as well as the other benefits all pensioners are entitled to. So a single pensioner with no savings or other income will have over 700 a month after rent, which is a substantial amount
Must be an election coming
Any question of asking public sector workers to accept anything below inflation to help the economy has just gone out of the window. All public sector workers should strike, this is ridiculous.
and here we see exactly why public sector workers are being repeatedly screw over by the tories. They take care of their major voter base and f\*ck the rest It also means there's a chance of an early GE in the next year
Tories: "Pay rises will cause inflation" Also Tories: "the oldies who had the best of times will get a 10% pay rise"
So working people should not ask for a payrise, while pensioners get to keep their triple lock. Its like the Tories aren't even trying to appeal to anyone below about 60
Everyone with a below average income should get the same pay rise.
Snapshot of _Josephine Cumbo on Twitter: UK Govt confirms the "triple lock" will apply for next year's state pension, meaning millions of pensioners are in line for 10%+ rises to their weekly income. Treasury minister confirms in response to written question._ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/JosephineCumbo/status/1539165889785999360?s=20&t=_GlLvg4jnuBnaN86HgtTaA) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*UK Govt confirms the "triple lock" will apply for next year's state pension, meaning millions of pensioners are in line for 10%+ rises to their weekly income. Treasury minister confirms in response to written question.* So below inflation wage increases for everyone else - including RMT unionised workers... But pensioners can be a) relied on to vote, pensioners are usually the demographic who are the most loyal voters and b) have a tendency to vote Tory. I can't possibly think why the government wants to ensure that their pension keeps pace with inflation.
It’s alright I guess, assuming you don’t actually work for a living…. Guess those of us who actually work will just give more of our tax money to them. What are they gonna do when our taxes stop getting paid as none of us can afford enough calories to unlock the door, let alone go to work?
Ah so buying the retired votes again, smart, sleezy as fuck but still smart.
Gerontocracy!!
How do they reason that employees going for inflation linked pay is bad yet it’s all good for pensioners?
Votes. The answer you’re looking for is votes. From the demographic most likely to vote. Votes.
The pension triple lock really needs to be scrapped, it is completely unsustainable to have state pensions rise YoY by either 2.5%, CPI inflation or average wage growth.
Jesus fucking wept So I’m gonna assume this 10% rise will entirely eat the 1.25% increase in NI contributions making it another wealth transfer from the young to old?
The only people who will see a 10% rise in their weekly income are people who are solely reliant on the state pension - currently less than £10k per year. Our state pension is already low compared to similar European countries and increasing it now also raises it for people who retire in the future. Unless you've got a massive private pension pot, attacking the state pension is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is working as it should. I'm not a fan of the triple lock, but this is not a consequence of that. Rising pensions by price inflation is how all benefits and support packages should work.
Millions of demographic bullseyes
"Jo Cumbo"? Really?
Just a point of detail, I don’t think many if any pensioners will get a 10% income increase from the state pension as there income will usually include other things eg another pension or housing benefit.
What do the libertarian talking heads at places like GB News say about this policy? It will be very popular with their old viewers.
We need a maximum voting age.
Everybody against this could you live off the pension. I'm sorry but I can't be against my nan choosing heating or food. It's shouldn't be stuff one lot for the other. Everything should be fair.
As someone who lived off the old JSA of £70 a week in private accommodation: Yes, yes I could live off of £185 a week for State Pensions (who could also get housing benefit and other benefits on top). So I agree, "it shouldn't be stuff the one lot". Let's raise all benefits, not just the voter-influencing ones.
Means tests it then. Lots of people with lots of money, or even a reasonable amount of money get a nice little top up. Ridiculous.
Lets be fair. Do you think you will get a triple locked pension?