Triple-lock on pensions will stay. Pensions will increase when earnings have decreased

[R.P.L]

Poverty by age:

Spoiler: Poverty by age figures

Quite clear that in the last 20 years, poverty among pensioners is massively decreased, while it's increased for everyone else, especially young people. This is for 2014, the situation is significantly worsened since then, and will continue to get worsen.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/mpse-2015/poverty-and-age

4 Million children live in poverty in this country, probably already reached 5 million:
https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/our-work/ending-child-poverty/what-is-child-poverty

I guess that's what happens when you make everyone else poorer, to make the least poor demographics even richer.

There are some obvious problems with defining living in poverty as being below a certain percentage of average income. The article states that 66% of families with children have an income below 60% of the national average, and are therefore defined as living in poverty. Doesn't sound anywhere near as shocking when you word it like that, does it?

 

[southernorth]

Those selfish millennials, why not a quadruple lock on pensions?

 

[R.P.L]

On the subject of triple-lock pensions, yeah it's silly. They should move in line with inflation, but the other two don't make sense.

 

[StriderX]

There are some obvious problems with defining living in poverty as being below a certain percentage of average income. The article states that 66% of families with children have an income below 60% of the national average, and are therefore defined as living in poverty. Doesn't sound anywhere near as shocking when you word it like that, does it?

Suffering starts at some point, it doesn't begin when you're homeless.

 

[R.P.L]

Suffering starts at some point, it doesn't begin when you're homeless.

I didn't say that it did.

 

[HACO]

There are some obvious problems with defining living in poverty as being below a certain percentage of average income. The article states that 66% of families with children have an income below 60% of the national average, and are therefore defined as living in poverty. Doesn't sound anywhere near as shocking when you word it like that, does it?

Yeah but the whole "2 million pensioners live in poverty" claim also uses that same definition, and is used to justify increase in the state pension and other policies that benefit them, at the expense of someone else. Applying the same definition, a lot more children (and workers) live in poverty.

 

[R.P.L]

Yeah but the whole "2 million pensioners live in poverty" claim also uses that same definition, and is used to justify increase in the state pension and other policies that benefit them, at the expense of someone else. Applying the same definition, a lot more children (and workers) live in poverty.

Sure - it's a BS definition whomever it's applied to.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Here's a radical idea.

Instead of moaning that pensions get a triple lock and argue for it to be brought down to meet the lowest common denominator how about leaving pensions alone and instead use our time and energy to get the young a better deal?

It's not one or the other - we can treat both pensioners AND the young well.

 

[adolf hamster]

Here's a radical idea.

great plan, where's the money coming from?

 

[southernorth]

great plan, where's the money coming from?

The millenials future pension pot (or, more appropriately pension thimble)

 

[adolf hamster]

The millenials future pension pot (or, more appropriately pension thimble)

i'm sure millenials will have great pensions.

they'll just have to be over 95 to get them.....

 

[Deleted member 66701]

great plan, where's the money coming from?

https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/...expid=.OyywKgKNQfKo0ZgN1WBZtg.0&utm_referrer=

 

[adolf hamster]

https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/...expid=.OyywKgKNQfKo0ZgN1WBZtg.0&utm_referrer=

ahh, so we find whoever's computer has all the money stored on it and type a few extra zeroes on the end, i can see no problem with this plan whatsoever

 

[RandomMonkeH]

Ahh another anti boomer thread by haco. Wow much shock, so surprise.

Don't forget that many pensioners, after decades of subsidising the millennials from the "bank of mum and dad", are going to need stretch that pension pot just a little bit further in their grandparent duties to look after all those Alpha sprogs.
Once you look past that massive chip on your shoulder, you might see the value in having the support network of an extended family, and you might want them looked after too.

The state pension is worth next to nothing, comparatively - a maximum of around £7,000 per annum. Hardly a fortune and barely enough to stop somebody starving and keep them off the streets - for many of that generation that is all they will have.
If you are smart you will already have a private pension that outperforms this, you will have certainly benefited from an education system they paid for, much of which has now been slashed for those coming through now.

Abandoning the triple lock is going to save an insignificant sum when compared to the furlough scheme or indeed any of the other monumental disasters that governments of all creeds typically pee away taxpayers money on.

So, once you have confiscated the boomers pensions and repossessed their houses, what's next on the agenda? Mass euthanisation for the over 50's? Get a grip man.

If you want to focus your bile on something constructive, consider the massive ever widening gap between the rich and poor (and that spans all generations), or perhaps the current idiotic education system that fails to prepare our youth for anything useful, or the impossible hurdles in starting up a new business. There are many things wrong with this country, the triple lock really isn't the one you should be worrying about.

 

[chrcoluk]

They really need to add a none of the above as a choice, if that wins, then all parties must form a coalition to work together to run the country into the ground instead of just 1 party getting to do it

The unreliable voting isnt just about not finding a party in touch, but also that most young people agree FPTP is a joke. Its an antique way of voting, we need to ditch it, but sadly I cant see it happening during my lifetime.

 

[chrcoluk]

I don't see why younger generations keep scapegoating older generations for everything, most of the policies that have lead to the situation we find ourselves in today are supported wholeheartedly by those naive younger generations. Older generations voted Brexit to try to curb mass unlimited immigration that drives down wages and drives up house/rent prices and how did youth react? we got the entirety of the younger generations protesting and calling them racists, demanding another referendum and the voting age be lowered so they can get their own way.

When you have the whole political establishment, corporate business world and one percenters fighting in your corner it's a basic rule of thumb that you're on the side that is shafting the little people in favour of the wealthy.

Rents are high because of bad supply/demand, and thats bad because there is a lack of social housing, its not caused by immigration. It is caused by not enough new social homes been built. If the older generation think its caused by immigration, then they have had wool pulled over their eyes. If that was correct Leicester would have the highest rents in the country.

It seems to me the older generation maybe just believe what the daily mail tells them?

The older generation are very anti public spending, thinking it will be 1979 again, so they just look for the cheaper options on the ballot.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

If state pensions are in such a perilous position it seems prudent to me to make alternative arrangements, such as buying a second house to generate an income in retirement. Furthermore, with the BoE still murmuring about having the option of negative interest rates, anyone in their last twenty years before retirement with some savings might be more inclined to buy property than watch their savings dwindle.

 

[HACO]

Rents are high because of bad supply/demand, and thats bad because there is a lack of social housing, its not caused by immigration. It is caused by not enough new social homes been built. If the older generation think its caused by immigration, then they have had wool pulled over their eyes. If that was correct Leicester would have the highest rents in the country.

It seems to me the older generation maybe just believe what the daily mail tells them?

The older generation are very anti public spending, thinking it will be 1979 again, so they just look for the cheaper options on the ballot.

Not immediately related to immigration, but we do have a serious population problem in this country. We are almost as dense as Japan in terms of population per square mile, yet we pretend we're like France or Spain when it comes to housing. We are more than twice as dense as France, and more than three times as dense as Spain.

We can't just build new houses, we need to learn from the likes of Japan and South Korea, go on build entire cities. We need a wartime mobilisation effort to build houses. We need to build massive skyscrapers in London and other major cities like they have them in Tokyo or Seoul. We need a plan to build 10 million houses/flats in 5 years.

If we don't do it, property prices will continue to skyrocket by more than 8% a year, and within 20 or 25 years, median house in this country will go over £1m.

 

[HACO]

If state pensions are in such a perilous position it seems prudent to me to make alternative arrangements, such as buying a second house to generate an income in retirement. Furthermore, with the BoE still murmuring about having the option of negative interest rates, anyone in their last twenty years before retirement with some savings might be more inclined to buy property than watch their savings dwindle.

That's part of the problems. Boomers were being taxed so low, and the state pension was low. So they used that money (that they should have otherwise paid in taxes to build up the state pension trust fund for their retirements) to buy second, third, and forth properties, almost always leveraged, to fund their retirements. Now the government is planning to make sure they won't be required to sell these properties to pay for their social care, instead they'll introduce taxes on the 40+ people, as Tories have announced.

This country's commitment to benefiting the landowner class is nothing short of a fundamentalist religion. Prices can only go up, land value can't ever be taxed, and they're given every possible advantage in life. I don't blame any individual to want in on the feast. It's poor policy though.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Ahh another anti boomer thread by haco. Wow much shock, so surprise.

Don't forget that many pensioners, after decades of subsidising the millennials from the "bank of mum and dad", are going to need stretch that pension pot just a little bit further in their grandparent duties to look after all those Alpha sprogs.
Once you look past that massive chip on your shoulder, you might see the value in having the support network of an extended family, and you might want them looked after too.

It's under that generation's watch that house prices have got out of control so parents have to subsidise their children to get houses or they can't afford them. Usually they can afford to help due the massive equity they have generated from those house price rises.