PM says that pensions will rise with inflation

[Streetwalker]

Governments, and those concerned with pensions and welfare of the elderly, have been pointing out for decades that the state pension cannot/will not be sufficient to live on in the future.

Way before I was born there were government encouraged schemes to encourage all working people to make provision for their retirement.

That's why today employers are obliged by law to offer pension schemes to their employees. This is still too late for many employees so the state pension will need to operate for people retiring in 20 to 30 years.

Younger people need to take this information on board...

Younger people haven't  anything to spare . Rents or if they have had some inheritence a mortgage are not worrying about spending their last fiver on a pension plan 

[patman post]

Too much of the state's money is spent on giving pensions to people who already have plenty of retirement money.

However planning for retirement is a long term business.

As such, I would say that the triple lock should remain in place in the short term, but they should announce it will be removed over a staggered few years in about 10 years from now.

For sure, it is completely discracegul to say that the triple lock stays, but other benefits like PIP, UC and so on don't get the same treatment - the fundamental assumption is that people in receipt of those benefits need them just as much as pensioners.

The next thing I would announce is that in the very long term, starting in about 20-30 years from now, they would steadily start to remove state pension entitlement from those who have significant private pension provision - anything above a certain amount of private pension provision, and you would lose your state pension on a staggered scale.

I cannot really justify giving out gold plated state pensions to people who have huge private retirement pots, but I also recognise that you can't just take that away from people who have already worked a good portion of their career.

Of course this won't ever happen because pensioners, who are most likely to vote, would never vote for it.

Governments, and those concerned with pensions and welfare of the elderly, have been pointing out for decades that the state pension cannot/will not be sufficient to live on in the future.

Way before I was born there were government encouraged schemes to encourage all working people to make provision for their retirement.

That's why today employers are obliged by law to offer pension schemes to their employees. This is still too late for many employees so the state pension will need to operate for people retiring in 20 to 30 years.

Younger people need to take this information on board...

[Streetwalker]

I thought the whole point was that there won't be a State Pension going forward. I thought everyone has to belong to a pension scheme.

As the vast majority of pension shemes are linked to stock markets it would only take an incompetent chancerler to make a wrong move and everyone would end up skint 
The state pension is the safety net . Its also what we have all paid for during our working lives......

You didn't say it Javert, but are you thinking along the lines of the State Pension becoming a means tested benefit?

.....which is why it shouldn't be means tested .  Pensions are taxable income like any other , those with large pensions would probably pay back the state pension in tax anyway . 
Means testing would hit those with megre savings or maybe those who own their own homes but have little cash . The knock on effects of cutting them off from the pension lifeline haven't been thought about .

[T00ts]

I thought the whole point was that there won't be a State Pension going forward. I thought everyone has to belong to a pension scheme.

[cromwell]

Too much of the state's money is spent on giving pensions to people who already have plenty of retirement money.

However planning for retirement is a long term business.

As such, I would say that the triple lock should remain in place in the short term, but they should announce it will be removed over a staggered few years in about 10 years from now.

For sure, it is completely discracegul to say that the triple lock stays, but other benefits like PIP, UC and so on don't get the same treatment - the fundamental assumption is that people in receipt of those benefits need them just as much as pensioners.

The next thing I would announce is that in the very long term, starting in about 20-30 years from now, they would steadily start to remove state pension entitlement from those who have significant private pension provision - anything above a certain amount of private pension provision, and you would lose your state pension on a staggered scale.

I cannot really justify giving out gold plated state pensions to people who have huge private retirement pots, but I also recognise that you can't just take that away from people who have already worked a good portion of their career.

Of course this won't ever happen because pensioners, who are most likely to vote, would never vote for it.

That is not that bad an idea,I could support that given safeguards.

[Javert]

You didn't say it Javert, but are you thinking along the lines of the State Pension becoming a means tested benefit?

Eventually yes but only being introduced gradually in several decades from now so that the rich who can afford large pension pots have time to prepare for it.  To be clear, I am not suggesting that you would lose a pound of your state pension for each pound of private pension income you have or something like that - more that those with very large private pension incomes or assets do not need a state pension.  A good starting point would be that those with pension savings exceeding the lifetime allowance would lose their state pension (again in the long term future).

[Barry]

You didn't say it Javert, but are you thinking along the lines of the State Pension becoming a means tested benefit?

[Javert]

Too much of the state's money is spent on giving pensions to people who already have plenty of retirement money.

However planning for retirement is a long term business.

As such, I would say that the triple lock should remain in place in the short term, but they should announce it will be removed over a staggered few years in about 10 years from now.

For sure, it is completely discracegul to say that the triple lock stays, but other benefits like PIP, UC and so on don't get the same treatment - the fundamental assumption is that people in receipt of those benefits need them just as much as pensioners.

The next thing I would announce is that in the very long term, starting in about 20-30 years from now, they would steadily start to remove state pension entitlement from those who have significant private pension provision - anything above a certain amount of private pension provision, and you would lose your state pension on a staggered scale.

I cannot really justify giving out gold plated state pensions to people who have huge private retirement pots, but I also recognise that you can't just take that away from people who have already worked a good portion of their career.

Of course this won't ever happen because pensioners, who are most likely to vote, would never vote for it.

[T00ts]

Not to anything like the same extent. The left exist to champion the weak, the poor and the downtrodden. Anyone who is championing those worse off than themselves is not really being motivated by self interest. By definition the left believes in the common good whilst the right believes in the individual. The latter is inherently more selfish and less collective.

Keep kidding yourself.

[srb7677]

Absolutely you should freeze and starve all for the greater good.

Actually you should freeze and starve none for the greater good, even if that means those with vastly more than they need contributing a little more.

[Sheepy]

He's like a typical pensioner of any hue of incompetence. You really think the left don't put themselves first?

Absolutely you should freeze and starve all for the greater good.

[srb7677]

You really think the left don't put themselves first?

Not to anything like the same extent. The left exist to champion the weak, the poor and the downtrodden. Anyone who is championing those worse off than themselves is not really being motivated by self interest. By definition the left believes in the common good whilst the right believes in the individual. The latter is inherently more selfish and less collective.

[T00ts]

Of course you are. More money in your pocket funded by working people who are not getting anything like the same inflationary increases. Many of them much worse off than you. But you'll be alright so that's all that matters eh?

You are a typical Tory pensioner

He's like a typical pensioner of any hue of incompetence. You really think the left don't put themselves first?

[srb7677]

Even if Berkeley said it wouldn't.

I am beginning to warm to Liz.

Of course you are. More money in your pocket funded by working people who are not getting anything like the same inflationary increases. Many of them much worse off than you. But you'll be alright so that's all that matters eh?

You are a typical Tory pensioner

[Borchester]

Even if Berkeley said it wouldn't.

I am beginning to warm to Liz.

She might be a spineless incompetent who can't make a policy decision that lasts beyond lunch, but she does respond well to a good kick up the backside 


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63303880