Il pubblico sosterrebbe la riduzione del triplo blocco delle pensioni statali in un doppio blocco?
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54788-would-the-public-support-reducing-the-state-pension-triple-lock-to-a-double-lock
di patenteng
Il pubblico sosterrebbe la riduzione del triplo blocco delle pensioni statali in un doppio blocco?
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54788-would-the-public-support-reducing-the-state-pension-triple-lock-to-a-double-lock
di patenteng
27 commenti
* 66% of Britons support keeping triple lock in place, while 14% are opposed
* 18-34 year olds support triple lock by 44% to 22%
* Public are split on reducing triple lock to a double lock, and against making it a single lock
* The older Britons are, the higher net opposition is for changing the triple lock
>A separate YouGov survey also tested whether the public are open to introducing a triple lock in further areas of welfare spending.
>The public are split over whether there should be a triple lock on working-age benefits, with 40% supporting the idea and 35% opposing it, or a triple lock on benefits for children, which 36% support while 38% are opposed.
>Opposition in both cases is notably higher among the older age groups – with 55% of the over-65s opposed to a triple lock on child benefits – although this is in part because younger Britons are more likely to have answered “don’t know”.
People aren’t generally principled about fairness, they just want to maximise what’s good for them at the expense of anyone else. This doesn’t just go for the old.
Whether people support it or not it isn’t sustainable. It’s ironic to me the older generations tend to be the ones that derive benefit claimants completely unaware, or wilfully ignorant of the fact, that they’re the biggest drain on the benefits system. Of course the closer you get to retirement you’re going to support a system that impendingly benefits you, but it doesn’t change that it’s not sustainable.
It’s always the poorest people opposing the triple lock and I don’t get why
Retirement in the coming decades will be incredibly difficult unless things change a lot
Less state pension will make things far harder for those that need it the most
It’s a good idea morally but it’s just not sustainable, should definitely be means tested. The older generation got their “reward for being around during the war” by being able to buy houses when they were much much cheaper.
I don’t get why younger people should have to shoulder a higher burden of a shit economy.
No, fuck it, make it a quadrupal lock… I want to live happily if I make it to 100 and can finally claim a pension.
I won’t get a state pension when my time comes, and if they reduce the current pension I wont get a tax reduction… so personally, don’t care either way, I guess.
It’s political suicide, proven by the winter fuel payment fiasco. No party will ever manage to get in power if they run on this policy.
The only way possible to change it is if the bond markets force the country into a 1976 sterling crisis scenario due to lack of belief the country can continue financing its debt.
For a case study of what this looks like for a European country look at Greece.
The triple lock is an outrageous waste of money. Honestly, the state pension should be cut and not insignificantly. It’s ridiculous.
ANd before there’s the whole “oooh they paid into it” there is no pension pot that was ever paid into. Peoples national insurance went into the national taxation pot. And that pot has barely been sufficent for anything, thus all the budget deficits. If “people got what they paid for” the state pension would be negative. And those repeated deficits were carried out, repeatedly, by elected governments. If you vote repeatedly for budget deficits you can’t expect a well funded state pension lol
No. I paid for others to have it and now I want it.
Again, this shows how much of an echo chamber Reddit is. Twice as many 18-34s support the triple lock than oppose it.
Pension increases should be linked to average earnings. Anything else is wealth transfer from workers to the retired.
I’m a long way from retirement and pension age so who know’s what I will get but it seems like a lot of people forget that they will be pensioners one day.
Don’t fight for taking too much away or you are going to need 700-800k in your private pension pot by retirement to notl be miserable and skint. For most even relatively good earners this will be difficult to achieve.
We won’t have the retirement our parents had but let’s not sabotage ourselves too much. My mother worked as a cleaner, my dad and electrician for the same company for 30 yrs and they are the stereotype. They go on multiple trips abroad every year. I will never have that and I’m a relatively high earner.
Yea….I got 50p a week pension rise, so mr tax man got his money back
As others have said, it’s not sustainable – and will become even more unsustainable as our population ages further and we have fewer working people to maintain it
The triple lock was introduced as a temporary measure. It has to end. That doesn’t mean throwing pensioners under the bus; but the triple lock does not make economic sense for the country today.
They should first do it over a rolling average rather that year on year.
If they did triple lock on a 10 year rolling average against each metric it would start to act like an actual lock. It would effectively match the highest of the 3 metrics over that time horizon, rather than year on year cherry picking the one that gives the largest return creating a compounding effect which beats them all quite significantly over a time period.
If you tell them the third lock is called Mohammed they’ll support it’s removal
I support a quadruple lock: that pensions will never go down in cash terms, that pensions will never go down in real terms, pensions will rise every year and pensions will go up in line with CPI inflation.
This is even better than the triple lock because 4 is more than 3
It would only be scrapped if there were a cross-party census to scrap it. It’s a ridiculous situation, everybody knows it’s crippling us but nobody can do anything about it without guaranteeing an election defeat.
Keep blaming the pensioners – it’s a good dog-whistle.
Next time someone brings up this trope ask them where the UK pension ranks among European countries. Then ask them how much of GDP the UK spends on state pensions compared to other European countries.
Then ask them how much the UK spends on the NHS compared to other European countriues.
Dogs tend to follow whistles rather than read on a subject.
The issue is the that it needs to be scrapped but any replacement will be unpopular with those who either paid NI for life or saved for retirement.
I think there should just be one lock, a direct link to median income growth
You would think the triple lock pension was a storied and foundational part of the British benefits system going by the way it gets talked about, even on here.
It’s 14 years old! I’ve got shirts older than that.
It’s totally unsustainable because it was devised by the coalition government as a bribe for the oldies, pork barrel politics at its worst. It’s a payment that’s guaranteed to rise even though the money pool that funds it isn’t. The maths does not math.
Probably, with a caveat that the government doesn’t perm two of three to minimise any uplift in pensions. Like anyone pensioners want some certainty in what they get in order to plan.
Support will also rely on the use the money saved is put to and seen to be put to.
Rather than make state pensions a set amount it should just be locked in at 10% below the national minimum wage for working a full 40hr week.
I suppose this will be popular with those on benefits who assume lower pension increase mean more money for them and left wingers who seem to hate the elderly.
Those that work for a living losing a third to half their income in tax might just want to get something back from the governement when thy retire. Penioners are unlikely to support their already low pensions growing more slowly.
Depends on the age group thst you ask.
People already drawing their pension won’t want it to change. They lose out.
People close to drawing their pension don’t want it to change. How frustrating to pay in your entire life only to get a worse deal right as you retire.
Those age groups account for quite a lot of a the population.
No party wanting to stay in power will do this. The best hope is a party who knows they will lose the next general election anyway doing it for the good of the country, but they may hamper their chances further down the line still. Opposition parties would make a lot of noise but ultimately wouldn’t reverse it.