The triple lock has to change, we need to protect vulnerable poor pensioners, but we don’t need to protect wealthy pensioners.
I’m sure Sir Kier will do anything to protect the precious pensions god forbid the anything happens to the pensions… unless it’s young people putting money into theirs then in that case tax them more
“Quick weve given all the old folks tons of money, how do we pull up the ladder behind us”
It’ll bankrupt the country by 2038 if young people continue to subsidise wealthy home owning pensioners
“However, the triple lock goes beyond this. As the value of the state pension rises by the maximum of earnings, inflation and 2.5%, it can grow faster than both inflation and average earnings growth when viewed over several years.”
Oh, yet other generations have to work for longer, get less value for their money and prop up existing pensions. Oh and many still cant own a house due to rising house prices and every bloody house its bought out by old people so they can play landlords.
Fantastic.
Pensions should be means tested.
End of the day it’s a benefit and other benefits are means tested.
The triple lock is one of the only things that seems to have universal backing of all political parties, whilst simultaneously being the most mathematically unsustainable policy at the heart of government spending.
Seeing as Keir doesn’t seem like he’ll last the full term at this rate, I’d love him to bite the bullet and ditch the triple lock on his way out. Might as well do the unpopular shit if you’re already on the way out.
The amount of people my age – approaching 40 – I know who aren’t really paying much into the pension is frightening
What is being proposed here is a “smoothed earnings link”:
> [Under this approach, the government would set a target level for the “new state pension” as a share of average earnings. Currently a full new state pension is worth about 30 per cent of median full-time earnings. The government could keep that as the target, or it could choose a different one.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
> [In most years, when the state pension is at the target level and real earnings are growing, the state pension would rise in line with average earnings growth. But in years when earnings grow slower than prices, the state pension would instead rise with inflation, temporarily reaching a higher share of average earnings. It would continue to rise with inflation as earnings recover, until it returned to its target share of average earnings.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
> [These features of the “smoothed earnings link” would mean that the state pension keeps up with living standards in the long run while protecting against inflation in economic downturns. It would do so without ratcheting up the value of the state pension over time compared with earnings.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
> [This would in turn provide greater predictability for policymakers. The fiscal cost would depend on what the government sets as the target level. But crucially, periods of macroeconomic volatility would not add further upward pressure on state pension spending.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
Don’t give boomers money, they’ll only spend it on alcohol
Triple lock?
Despite threshold freezes, people on state pensions will not pay tax when the state pension exceeds the first threshold.
12 comments
The triple lock has to change, we need to protect vulnerable poor pensioners, but we don’t need to protect wealthy pensioners.
I’m sure Sir Kier will do anything to protect the precious pensions god forbid the anything happens to the pensions… unless it’s young people putting money into theirs then in that case tax them more
“Quick weve given all the old folks tons of money, how do we pull up the ladder behind us”
It’ll bankrupt the country by 2038 if young people continue to subsidise wealthy home owning pensioners
“However, the triple lock goes beyond this. As the value of the state pension rises by the maximum of earnings, inflation and 2.5%, it can grow faster than both inflation and average earnings growth when viewed over several years.”
Oh, yet other generations have to work for longer, get less value for their money and prop up existing pensions. Oh and many still cant own a house due to rising house prices and every bloody house its bought out by old people so they can play landlords.
Fantastic.
Pensions should be means tested.
End of the day it’s a benefit and other benefits are means tested.
The triple lock is one of the only things that seems to have universal backing of all political parties, whilst simultaneously being the most mathematically unsustainable policy at the heart of government spending.
Seeing as Keir doesn’t seem like he’ll last the full term at this rate, I’d love him to bite the bullet and ditch the triple lock on his way out. Might as well do the unpopular shit if you’re already on the way out.
The amount of people my age – approaching 40 – I know who aren’t really paying much into the pension is frightening
What is being proposed here is a “smoothed earnings link”:
> [Under this approach, the government would set a target level for the “new state pension” as a share of average earnings. Currently a full new state pension is worth about 30 per cent of median full-time earnings. The government could keep that as the target, or it could choose a different one.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
> [In most years, when the state pension is at the target level and real earnings are growing, the state pension would rise in line with average earnings growth. But in years when earnings grow slower than prices, the state pension would instead rise with inflation, temporarily reaching a higher share of average earnings. It would continue to rise with inflation as earnings recover, until it returned to its target share of average earnings.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
> [These features of the “smoothed earnings link” would mean that the state pension keeps up with living standards in the long run while protecting against inflation in economic downturns. It would do so without ratcheting up the value of the state pension over time compared with earnings.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
> [This would in turn provide greater predictability for policymakers. The fiscal cost would depend on what the government sets as the target level. But crucially, periods of macroeconomic volatility would not add further upward pressure on state pension spending.](https://ifs.org.uk/articles/we-need-reconsider-triple-lock)
Don’t give boomers money, they’ll only spend it on alcohol
Triple lock?
Despite threshold freezes, people on state pensions will not pay tax when the state pension exceeds the first threshold.
We have reached quadruple lock.