Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Is anybody suggesting the pension shouldn't go up with inflation? If not, what's the problem?
Because it's applied on an annual basis, the rises tend to be higher than the original intent. Just a quirk of the system and how the real world operates. It's the understanding of these sorts of things that is grossly absent in general, not just in politics.
|
I don't think it's the link to inflation that's the issue; it's that it will always rise by inflation, the average earnings growth or 2.5%. Whichever is higher.
So when inflation is higher than average, the pension right increases, but when inflation is low, the wages used to pay for the triple-lock can't catch up, as the pension will go higher still.
It should be tied to a percentage of the average wage so that the tax base that pays for it can catch up during periods of low inflation and wage growth. Not forever taking a bigger and bigger percentage of the budget each year.
I would keep the triple lock until we reach a level that we're comfortable with as a country (it's low compared to some European nations even now), and then change how it works personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
pension should not be classed as a benefit,it is bought and paid for by hard work and taxes, if it's means tested whats the point of contributing if you're a high earner, i lived on my private pensions for 5 years as i retired at 61 but had to cut back on spending,i do not see that most on benefits want a job,i look down my street and it's full of the bone idle, back when i was working there were six house holds working out of 93 houses ,it's probably about the same now, mostly 20s-40s years old fit an healthy puffing on weed all day and buying takeaways 2-3 times a day on my taxes.
|
No one is talking about scrapping a private pension. That's money you paid in and will get out.
When it comes to the state pension, that isn't what you paid into it. Most current pensioners paid for the retirements of a smaller cohort of retirees when they were workers. If the state pension was what you paid into it, then the triple lock wouldn't exist as it wasn't budgeted for when they were working. Of course, as you well know, that isn't how our pension system works. The current crop of pensioners are being paid out from the taxes of the currently working population. That's fine, that's how a country should work, but it's as much a decision for taxpayers as any other area of government spending. It's not a ringfenced fund from which workers get their money back. Most pensioners would be on a lot less money if it were.
---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Agree to all of the above. I’d add social care to that list as well. There needs to be a UK-wide extension to the NHS that deals explicitly with how people who can no longer look after themselves move out of hospitals and into care. It’s such a far reaching reform, requiring a permanent solution that is not open to regular political meddling, that it ought to start with a royal commission with authoritative recommendations all main parties buy in to. They can then squabble over fine details and devolved administrations can decide exactly how it’s run, but the basic principle has to be established and made politically impossible to ditch, much as the NHS was.
|
I think this either needs to be a type of state-mandated universal insurance scheme (as EU nations do with health care insurance) or do what May suggested, which was essentially a big inheritance tax scheme to claim social care costs upon death.