L’età della pensione statale potrebbe risorgere dopo il costo del triplo serratura.

The Government were almost certainly going to break the lock, they tested the water with the winter fuel payment and after that shit storm I doubt anyone will look at the triple lock for years.

Robbing the young to give even more to the old is ridiculous. We already know that younger generations are going to have a worse retirement than this retiring now so why compound the disparity by giving them more!

Just scrap it altogether, we’re paying into a pot we’re clearly never going to get a chance to draw from it’s a piss take at this point.

Why am i paying into a pension pot? I’m 32, by the time it gets to my turn retirement age will be 90…

The triple lock is irrelevant in the short to medium term. In the long term, yes, but in the long run we are all dead. Which brings us to item b: spending on the elderly is not limited to pensions and it is healthcare and social care whose costs are sky rocketing.

I can’t remember a time when my grandparents work, they retired before I was born in their early to mid fifties….. if they retired at our current retirements rates, they’d have only just stopped working for a few years….

I’m genuinely not planning on being reliant on the state pension at this point. What I’m more mad about is that I have no choice but to contribute. If there was an opt-out I’d take it, I’d rather take that small amount and invest/save it myself rather than paying into a system that I’m not going to benefit from.

So long as pensions are subject to the triple lock but wages aren’t, the policy will be unsustainable.

At some point, this will need a government to bite the bullet, axe the thing so it’s only inline with inflation, and spin the absolute hell out of the media fallout.

Having an arbitrary 2.5% rise makes no sense if the cost of living is less than that.

Having it rise by wage increases, I’m not sure makes sense (or what the rationale behind that one was)

This was a Tory policy aimed as a vote winner for a generation who want see the fallout on the finances. Another thing to be someone else’s problem.

I’m 33, my contributions to my own pension fund is gonna be based on there not being a state pension to help me.

Pay more taxes, get less return, all while the wealthiest pay less taxes than ever. Thanks gov.

And apparently it’s all those iLlEgAlS oN bOaTs that are causing the country to go bankrupt.

I’m already convinced people who are in their 20s and 30s just aren’t retiring.

>The research from Kendall’s department also suggests four-in-ten people – nearly 15m – are undersaving for retirement, with nearly half (45 per cent) of working age adults saving nothing at all into a pension.

I don’t understand why so few people invest into their own future. Obviously some people genuinely cannot afford to, but there is no way that half of working age adults cannot afford to save anything into a pension.

If salaries would have risen, then workers would be paying more into the system and pensioners would get what they get without bankrupting us, surely?

The disparity between UK salaries and the same jobs in other ‘similar’ countries is astonishing. Low salaries mean low tax collecting.

This is exactly why when people in their 30s say they support the triple lock because they want a triple locked state pension in retirement I shake my head. If it exists for another 30 years you’ll either have to pay significantly more tax and or get access to it significantly later.

Replacing the triple lock with a single lock to either average earnings or inflation is the sensible thing to do. But after the reaction to removing the wfa from wealthy pensioners it’s clear sensible policy in this area doesn’t exist.

Please. Triple lock and a lid.

I know it’s become the popular thing to complain about. But no the state pension is not too generous in terms of the benefit it provides. The state pension provides today jut under 30% of the median income.

In my opinion this is more or less the correct level. If we look at things at a more abstract level, most people are a couple in old age. In old age we are instructed by financial planners to aim for around 70% of prior income as a pension, thus will provide for continued quality of life, ie eating the same food, and the same ocassional expense of a trip away in the UK a few weekends each year, abit more than 70 gets you trips abroad, something more in the 65% is where your straddling between not enough in some Cost of living areas, and the cheap food without adequate socialisation (I’m not talking holidays in talking loneliness as a result of insufficient hours a week with others).

If state pension for an individual is 30% that means the basic elderly couple retains 60% of median income in old age, that will keep them fed, housed, clothed, then the additional 10% is to be found in their own private – compulsory pensions, 8% minimum for 40years of work will sustain 20 years of 10% prior earnings, not indefinitely but to median death, yes. If you were wise and contributed more you might be able to exceed 70, and approach 80% if you contributed 10, and your union got you a 8% employer match, etc etc.

But 60% for a couple is what we need as a society to have a base level of dignity.

We are almost there, it’s hovering around 28/29% at the moment. The problem is the triple lock is 3 values, 2.5%, inflation, or annual median wage increase, whichever is highest, this means that if median wage/(not equal but close enough) gdp growth is less than 2.5% then pensions will increase as a shareof national expenditure, and on a long enough timeliness that becomes an exponential curve towards default. But this is only the case when 2.5%>Gdp, which need not be true if you have robust enough industrial policy. BUT, even if you fail to do so, the tracking with median wage and inflation is most important, they are each a backstop against a slow erosion in living standards for the elderly that make them a greater social burden on society broadly or the NHS specifically if you want to be like that.

In which case we should simply add a cap. The triple lock remains, with a cap, the state pension rises by the highest of 3 factors, UNLESS is would exceed 30% of the median annual wage.

This would stop it perpetual growing as a share of GDP/government expenditure. And gives us a clear policy tool if and when we restore some economic dynamism through active industrial policy, and we can raise that cap in a slow sustainable manner, maybe in 2035, we’ve had 5 years of ineffective but not harmful right-labour bring government, then in 2029 labour gets really freaked out about the collapse of democracy and decides to do some actual brute force industrial policy, and by 2035, its safe for us to eek up the cap, 0.1%median earning per year, until its 32.5% in 2060 meaning the guaranteed minimum is 65% meaning the small share that will slip through into meaningful poverty will shrink over time.

The answer cannot be a reduction in state pension size, the increase in poverty will just be paid by society elsewhere. It is not meaningfully in private pensions, the returns to capital investment come from somewhere, its not free free money, returns to capital are definitionally not returns to labour/workers. Its valuable as an extra on top of the basic minimum the state pension for individuals and private pension funds are a useful base to the fiscal system in the UK, but they aren’t intrinsically superior to a liquid redistributive system trhough taxation, and fact they are demonstrably inferior by many metrics. The answer for me must involve 1) capping the state pension as proportional to median wages, 2) active industrial policy to restore per capita gdp and wage growth above 2%, 3) the use of private pensions as a pressure release valve rewarding wise personal management without causing social dysfunction.