Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Si1

Triple Lock Pension Bribe

Recommended Posts

The only thing that can stop it would be introducing a basic income at the same rate as the state pension and then merging them into one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we'd had largesse across the board, this policy would be more defensible, if still misguided. It becomes disgusting when contrasted with the way the young people have been comparatively treated, tripling of university fees in the name of austerity. 

Get ready for a homeowner bribe next. As long as their pensioner block vote, and the mortgage holders in marginal constituencies are kept sweet, the tories have nearly enough to get across the line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Triple Lock is in place because the UK has some of the worst State pensions in Europe.   Yes there are some wealthy pensioners but there are still a large number of poor ones but its still no reason to vote Tory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dougless said:

The Triple Lock is in place because the UK has some of the worst State pensions in Europe.   Yes there are some wealthy pensioners but there are still a large number of poor ones but its still no reason to vote Tory.

Yes, there are pensioners only living on a state pension..private pensions non existent during their working life, also they have worked hard, lived through hard times and have rented all their lives...it is their kids that got the chance to buy, got the high wage inflation and lower house prices and chance to buy in the 70s and 80s......even now many old people only have the state pension to rely on, the self employed and those who have worked for small firms all their lives whilst bringing their children up with no benefits and no in work or private pension or only a few pounds a month.... many elderly people are too proud to ask for help, their children help them if they can.😊

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if im wrong on this, but the triple lock did not exist, in the entire history of the welfare state, until david camerons government introduced it in 2010. At a time when they trumpeted other cuts in the name of balancing the books. Nothing wrong with alleviating pensioner poverty by stating we will try to ensure the pension keeps pace with price inflation, however doubt alleviating poverty is main reason Cameron and osborne entered politics. The main purpose of a statement as bold as the triple lock was to send a clear, reassuring message to pensioners(the tories core vote) " we may be making a big deal of cutting money to certain groups in society, but dont worry, we wont be doing it to you" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how societies unravel and the social contract breaks down. People will put up with hardship, such as rationing during WW2 and the aftermath, if they see it being shared around. Even during the great depression of the 1930s, although the wealthiest in society weren't trudging the streets looking for work, it was common knowledge they had still lost fortunes.

Ive nothing against pensioners, but this policy isnt about helping pensioners, its about bribing the people who are currently pensioners at this moment in time. Somebody in there 20s now, is very aware that the state pension might not even exist when they hit retirement age, let alone the triple lock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

Correct me if im wrong on this, but the triple lock did not exist, in the entire history of the welfare state, until david camerons government introduced it in 2010. At a time when they trumpeted other cuts in the name of balancing the books. Nothing wrong with alleviating pensioner poverty by stating we will try to ensure the pension keeps pace with price inflation, however doubt alleviating poverty is main reason Cameron and osborne entered politics. The main purpose of a statement as bold as the triple lock was to send a clear, reassuring message to pensioners(the tories core vote) " we may be making a big deal of cutting money to certain groups in society, but dont worry, we wont be doing it to you" 

I thought Triple Lock was a lib dem condition for the coalition govt to go ahead...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

If we'd had largesse across the board, this policy would be more defensible, if still misguided. It becomes disgusting when contrasted with the way the young people have been comparatively treated, tripling of university fees in the name of austerity. 

Get ready for a homeowner bribe next. As long as their pensioner block vote, and the mortgage holders in marginal constituencies are kept sweet, the tories have nearly enough to get across the line. 

Very well put - in principle our pensions aren’t generous so standalone not the worst idea in the world but without balance in helping other generations it looks very poor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

If we'd had largesse across the board, this policy would be more defensible, if still misguided. It becomes disgusting when contrasted with the way the young people have been comparatively treated, tripling of university fees in the name of austerity. 

Get ready for a homeowner bribe next. As long as their pensioner block vote, and the mortgage holders in marginal constituencies are kept sweet, the tories have nearly enough to get across the line. 

Well I'm a pensioner and a homeowner, and I'm certainly not voting for Dominic Cummings, BJ, and their lap dogs, however much they bung in my direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

Correct me if im wrong on this, but the triple lock did not exist, in the entire history of the welfare state, until david camerons government introduced it in 2010.
...

The main purpose of a statement as bold as the triple lock was to send a clear, reassuring message to pensioners(the tories core vote) " we may be making a big deal of cutting money to certain groups in society, but dont worry, we wont be doing it to you" 

You're wrong - sort of.  It was the COALITION government who introduced it in 2010 and it was a Lib Dem policy that they insisted upon as part of the coalition agreement.  It was not a Tory policy for Tory voters.  The core Tory voter is unlikely in any event to be relying just on State benefits in retirement.

38 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

Ive nothing against pensioners, but this policy isnt about helping pensioners, its about bribing the people who are currently pensioners at this moment in time. Somebody in there 20s now, is very aware that the state pension might not even exist when they hit retirement age, let alone the triple lock.

For decades pensioners were poorer relative to the rest of the population and the triple lock helped redress the balance.  However, its job is done now - so it SHOULD be abolished.

However, I'd also argue that ANY pension policy can ONLY ever help people who are currently pensioners - after all, any promise relating to future pensioners currently aged 25 could always be overturned by a future government during the next 40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Well I'm a pensioner and a homeowner, and I'm certainly not voting for Dominic Cummings, BJ, and their lap dogs, however much they bung in my direction.

I raise you my glass of grog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

 

However, I'd also argue that ANY pension policy can ONLY ever help people who are currently pensioners - after all, any promise relating to future pensioners currently aged 25 could always be overturned by a future government during the next 40 years.

Like defaulting on SERPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course any policy can only help current pensioners. However, it needs to be put into context of current trends. Everybody knows that provision for pensioners in the future  has been cut back over recent years, both in generosity of the pension,greater amounts paid in,  and the age it can be claimed. The expectation is it will get even more less generous, with the objective of making payouts sustainable. The triple lock therefore goes blatantly against an obvious trend, to appease a dominant electoral group now. 

In reference to the lib dems, i believe they also made a public promise not to raise university tuition fees which was dropped at the insistence of the tories. They didnt even restrain the increase to something reasonable like 50 percent(still very high), they tripled at a stroke. Dont think the libdems made conservatives implement any major policies that didnt suit them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

Everybody knows that provision for pensioners in the future  has been cut back over recent years, both in generosity of the pension,greater amounts paid in,  and the age it can be claimed. The expectation is it will get even more less generous, with the objective of making payouts sustainable. The triple lock therefore goes blatantly against an obvious trend, to appease a dominant electoral group now. 

There's a certain circular logic failure in that though - your argument seems to be that pensions are blantantly going to dwindle to nothing, and yet they haven't because the government can't ignore pensioners at the ballot box.  We the UK demographics set as they are i.e. an aging population, that suggests if anything pensioner voting power will become stronger, not weaker, and the triple lock, far from bucking the trend, could be an indication that the trend has its limits.

If ever the pendulum swings too far from pensioners they will have the power to vote in a new government to reverse it - and will do so.

58 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

In reference to the lib dems, i believe they also made a public promise not to raise university tuition fees which was dropped at the insistence of the tories. They didnt even restrain the increase to something reasonable like 50 percent(still very high), they tripled at a stroke. Dont think the libdems made conservatives implement any major policies that didnt suit them. 

As you would expect for the less dominant of the two coalition parties.

But if the Tories wanted to have bribed the pensioners they would have put the bribe in THEIR manifesto - BEFORE the election.  Had they done that I'd agree with your original post.  As it is I agree with your second comment that the Tories were happy enough with it - but I don't accept your original assertion that it is a just Tory bribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, the state pension is nothing but a nice little add on for those with their own provision anyway. Anyone with just a state pension will struggle to make ends meet. 

Presumably they all claim benefits. 

This problem is going to get worse and I don't see any indication of it getting better under the current conditions. 

Those poor little younguns need to  wake up,  the only way for them to have any sort of retirement is for housing to plummet in cost so they can save loads in a pension. 

In the current system the only thing to do is get a load of btls 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For heavens sake, the state pension is £129.20 a week. 

This year's increase will be almost entirely eaten up by having to pay for the TV Licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the very least pensioners should be paying tax at the same rate as the rest of us. A working age person on £25k should have the same amount taken from that as a pensioner on £25k. National insurance should be merged into income tax so that all forms of income are subject to the same tax rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

When there wasn’t a general election coming up the Tories were raising the pension age.

So did Labour, in the 90s.  It was Blair who raise the age 68, the Tories only brought forward his plans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

So did Labour, in the 90s.  It was Blair who raise the age 68, the Tories only brought forward his plans. 

OK, so the Tories are innocent then. Not really much they could have done about that. I see what you’re saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

OK, so the Tories are innocent then. Not really much they could have done about that. I see what you’re saying.

All three major parties have contributed to the rise in state pension age, as it was labour first who raised it then the con/lib coalition that accelerated it and then finally the conservatives who accelerated it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

All three major parties have contributed to the rise in state pension age, as it was labour first who raised it then the con/lib coalition that accelerated it and then finally the conservatives who accelerated it again.

Agree. The current FPTP voting system makes skewed polls, vote fraud,  gerrymandering, bull s*** promises and bribes more effective.

https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/proportional-representation

 

Edited by Arpeggio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 293 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.