End the triple lock?

[T00ts]

I don't understand the point.

If your Old Age Pension plus  a private pension takes you over the tax threshold you pay tax. (I just had to pay £250 tax because of that.)

Gosh so you're rich! 

Pah. I pay about £600. Frankly I am doing so well I am surprised that I bother with you poor folk 

Per month?   

[Borchester]

I don't understand the point.

If your Old Age Pension plus  a private pension takes you over the tax threshold you pay tax. (I just had to pay £250 tax because of that.)

Gosh so you're rich! 

Pah. I pay about £600. Frankly I am doing so well I am surprised that I bother with you poor folk 

[papasmurf]

"Old Age Pension" Smurfy?
You tell us off when we say DHSS. It's not the "Old Age Pension" any more. It's the State Pension. Do keep up.

You don't get paid it until you are old. ( In the next few years very old.) I was born before 1951 so in my case it is Old Age Pension. The State Pension is different.

[T00ts]

I don't understand the point.

If your Old Age Pension plus  a private pension takes you over the tax threshold you pay tax. (I just had to pay £250 tax because of that.)

Gosh so you're rich! 

[Barry]

"Old Age Pension" Smurfy?
You tell us off when we say DHSS. It's not the "Old Age Pension" any more. It's the State Pension. Do keep up.

[papasmurf]

I don't understand the point.

If your Old Age Pension plus  a private pension takes you over the tax threshold you pay tax. (I just had to pay £250 tax because of that.)

[T00ts]

If policy was that those who have paid into private pensions as well as the State setup should subsequently get less then we should have the option of paying the State at all. If you want those who don't bother or can't pay into any pension to be covered then you need everyone to pay. What a really silly idea.

The tax system already taxes private pensions. It is easy to make any adjustments to it.

I don't understand the point.

[papasmurf]

If policy was that those who have paid into private pensions as well as the State setup should subsequently get less then we should have the option of paying the State at all. If you want those who don't bother or can't pay into any pension to be covered then you need everyone to pay. What a really silly idea.

The tax system already taxes private pensions. It is easy to make any adjustments to it.

[T00ts]

To me, the part of the triple lock that means the pension goes up regardless of whatever else happens doesn't make a lot of sense, and should already have been removed long ago.

Further, it's questionable whether the state pension should be paid at the same rate to those who already have large private pension provision, depending on the current economic conditions of the nation.

The real issue here though is that the triple lock will pretty surely need to be temporarily suspended next year for at least one year.  Otherwise the effects of the pandemic economic actions will result in pensioners getting an forecast 18% increase next year (this is due to all the people on furlough whose pay currently counts at 80% of normal, and will then suddenly go up again next year).

If policy was that those who have paid into private pensions as well as the State setup should subsequently get less then we should have the option of paying the State at all. If you want those who don't bother or can't pay into any pension to be covered then you need everyone to pay. What a really silly idea.

[Thomas]

Vardos actually and I see your post as yet another racist attack on my ethnicity and therefore demand an extremely large wedge of cash to sooth my feelings.

But Toots is pretty much a lone voice. We pensioners are selfish sods and any attempt by the government to appeal to our better nature will result in Boris and Co discovering that we don't have one. Fortunately, BoJo realises this and won't interfere with the triple lock.Rather he will just raise loans and push the burden onto the shoulders of future generations to ensure that the current crop of cotton tops continues to vote Tory.

[Thomas]

Further, it's questionable whether the state pension should be paid at the same rate to those who already have large private pension provision, depending on the current economic conditions of the nation.

Am i reading this aright?

Are you seriously arguing that folk who pay into a pension system , in this case the state pension , should get less out of it because they were more pragmatic in paying into other pension systems as well?

You have a strange sense of right and wrong.

Not only that , this principle of paying in but getting less out  while those who dont pay in get more out undermines the whole foundation that western society is built upon. You are simply punishing people who are being sensible with their money while rewarding those who arent .

[papasmurf]

We pensioners are selfish sods

Speak for yourself.

[Borchester]

I guess there has to be some protection simply because there will be those who consider the pension an unearned benefit who just might happily see pensioners reduced to single room living etc. No-one here of course. 😜

There are some on this forum who would like to see non earners homeless and living in "benders."

Vardos actually and I see your post as yet another racist attack on my ethnicity and therefore demand an extremely large wedge of cash to sooth my feelings.

But Toots is pretty much a lone voice. We pensioners are selfish sods and any attempt by the government to appeal to our better nature will result in Boris and Co discovering that we don't have one. Fortunately, BoJo realises this and won't interfere with the triple lock.Rather he will just raise loans and push the burden onto the shoulders of future generations to ensure that the current crop of cotton tops continues to vote Tory.

[papasmurf]

Otherwise the effects of the pandemic economic actions will result in pensioners getting an forecast 18% increase next year

Frankly that is nonsense. There would need to be an 18% increase in the CPI for that to happen.

https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/Measuring_inflation.html#:~:text=The%20CPI,the%20%27average%27%20UK%20household.

[Javert]

To me, the part of the triple lock that means the pension goes up regardless of whatever else happens doesn't make a lot of sense, and should already have been removed long ago.

Further, it's questionable whether the state pension should be paid at the same rate to those who already have large private pension provision, depending on the current economic conditions of the nation.

The real issue here though is that the triple lock will pretty surely need to be temporarily suspended next year for at least one year.  Otherwise the effects of the pandemic economic actions will result in pensioners getting an forecast 18% increase next year (this is due to all the people on furlough whose pay currently counts at 80% of normal, and will then suddenly go up again next year).