State pension should be linked to wages

[kzb]

5 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Steve Webb was thinking more like 33% I think

”a fraction” could be 1% or 99% so really that’s not controversial.  The exact fraction is the key 

How about the OECD average state pension as the starting point?

Or perhaps the average percentage of GDP in the OECD spent on pensions ?

The TR will have to be stopped eventually no argument.  But it was designed to increase the poor UK state pension in real terms to something similar to our peer nations.  Not there yet. 

But if they did something like I suggest above, then made it indexed to median salary or to GDP from then on, that would be fair enough.

[DiggerUK]

OK, it's old spongers suck time, when nasty posters come out to play.

Money is easily found for wars, Covid PPE hucksters, too big to fail banksters, the Easter Bunny WMD  hunt etc., but when it comes time for me and my generation to collect our state pension all hell breaks loose. We happily paid our 'social security' contributions to allow the generation before us to have their pension. We did so willingly, the payback would be for us to receive the same consideration when our time came. Some here are trying to kid on you don't want to receive a state pension when your time comes. What nonsense. 

It isn't such a great sum anyway. Receiving a %ge  of average wages has gained a few votes, it would also gain mine.; why? do the sums. According to The Office For National Statistics, "Average weekly earnings for total pay was £673 and for regular pay was £621 in September 2023". Which means that if we only got half of average earnings I'd receive over 150% of what I currently receive. Yes please.

The money is there to pay a better pension, always has been, always will be. We are still a wealthy country. All we need to do is distribute that wealth a little better..._

[Chunketh]

33 minutes ago, kzb said:

How about the OECD average state pension as the starting point?

Or perhaps the average percentage of GDP in the OECD spent on pensions ?

The TR will have to be stopped eventually no argument.  But it was designed to increase the poor UK state pension in real terms to something similar to our peer nations.  Not there yet. 

But if they did something like I suggest above, then made it indexed to median salary or to GDP from then on, that would be fair enough.

It wouldnt be fair at all.

The stamp is feck all, it isnt invested, so gains no retuens and cant possibly pay out those kind of sums of money. End of story.

We will end up with the working population paying out massive sums of money to existing pensioners with NOTHING in return.

Yet another example of the oldies wanting everything.

 

[frederico]

7 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Well it will be less in 10 years time than it would have been with the triple lock, yes, but that's part of the point.  The point at the moment is that rises unsustainably and unpredictably.  But dropping on day 1 is a no go in a cost of living crisis, so keeping it the same on day 1 and rising slower is more palatable.

The level of the pension is OK - maybe a touch low.  It's the triple lock mechanism that's stupid.

🤣

He is a Partner at pensions consultants LCP and has been for many years.  I work in pensions and have heard him give lectures.  He is a clever man with good ideas, and for sure knows more about pensions than 2 seconds worth.

You’re easily fooled, the man is a fake , I’m sure he has 13 years of experience riding the gravy train of election fraud.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

11 hours ago, scottbeard said:

It’s not about making it smaller, it’s about linking it to something more sensible that a triple lock 

The triple lock is mathematically unsustainable.

It is quite possible for an inflation bump one year with wages flat, then the next year wages rise to catch up, but inflation falls. The pension though gets a double top up.

Over time, it will become a bigger and bigger share of GDP.

[andrewwk]

11 hours ago, Nick Cash said:

State pension is really quite poor already. I’m not sure how making it even smaller will help the poorest in society.

Those who have built a decent personal pension will hardly be affected.

 

if you are in the segment so poor that you have saved nothing during your working life, then I guess you are lucky to live in a country that will still provide you with a minimum standard of living in retirement. Alternatively, why not means test the state pension and remove it for wealthy pensioners, using the savings to boost the pensions of the poorest?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

4 minutes ago, andrewwk said:

if you are in the segment so poor that you have saved nothing during your working life, then I guess you are lucky to live in a country that will still provide you with a minimum standard of living in retirement. Alternatively, why not means test the state pension and remove it for wealthy pensioners, using the savings to boost the pensions of the poorest?

More flesh for the scroungers.

I'll just ask for NI back, it way exceeds the state pension.

The state pension should be lower than it is now and flat for all in relation to qualifying years, with no top ups for the feckless.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Mikhail Liebenstein

[Trampa501]

1 hour ago, andrewwk said:

if you are in the segment so poor that you have saved nothing during your working life, then I guess you are lucky to live in a country that will still provide you with a minimum standard of living in retirement. Alternatively, why not means test the state pension and remove it for wealthy pensioners, using the savings to boost the pensions of the poorest?

Not sure how they do it, but the state pension is far higher in countries like France and Spain, so long as you have put in the right contributions over your lifetime. Not quite sure why that can't be fully implemented here (I know some lip service is made to NI contributions, but the problem appears to be that they are paid up to anyone spending years on benefit, so no incentive to keep working), they can still means test to help out the poorest pensioners.

[scottbeard]

8 hours ago, Insane said:

You seem to be contradicting yourself again but that is nothing new is it. 

You're so desperate to shoot down my arguments you're not really reading them, but rather muddling up my views on what I think SHOULD happen versus my suggestions to government on how to implement what THEY think should happen.

I will have one more go at explaining it, but after that I think I've said my piece.

8 hours ago, Insane said:

 It is matched to what is going on at the time which I have already said just as many pay claims are. Matching something to CPI or wages does not make it uncontrolled. 

But matching it to the greater of three things DOES make it uncontrolled, because you never know which will be bigger and by how much.

My view is that you should decide your philosophy: EITHER pensions should be linked to earnings (i.e. what taxes and workers living standards are based on) OR it should be linked to inflation (i.e. what pensioners spend it on).  But not both.

8 hours ago, Insane said:

Can you tell me what wages will have increased by in real terms over the next ten years? You can't tell me, nor can the Government, nor do the workers themselves know. That is why things like pay rises and the state pension increases are reviewed annually. 

So as I keep saying it is matched to what is happening at any given time. 

But as above - it isn't.  It is matched to the greater of several things.  Not long ago we had wages plummeting  in the pandemic whilst inflation soared, then wages rising ahead of inflation.  You need to decide a philosophy as above and stick to it.

8 hours ago, Insane said:

It is to make sure it increases in real terms due to it being a touch low , something that you want yet when put into place you then say it is random. In an earlier post you stated 1% why is that random 1% the right number? 

It isn't.  It was just me saying that IF someone wanted to increase the state pension by 10% in real terms, but it was too expensive to do it all at once, then 1% a year for 10 years is a better way to do it in a controlled manner than a triple lock that could easily overshoot the target next year or take decades to get there.

8 hours ago, Insane said:

So in that case it would be going up faster than it is now if they used the real inflation figures and added 1% each year. In an earlier post you said>

jiltedjen wants the state pension cut not increased in real terms go back and look at what he/she has written. You seem to be contradicting yourself again but that is nothing new is it. 

I know that jiltedjen wants it cut and I want it increased, but what I agreed with him on is that you need to decide a level and then stick to it - not set it at a level and like the triple lock algorithm increase it in an uncontrolled and unsustainable manner.

[scottbeard]

2 hours ago, frederico said:

You’re easily fooled, the man is a fake , I’m sure he has 13 years of experience riding the gravy train of election fraud.

So in your view: you're clever enough to see it, whilst all of Steve's partnership colleagues at LCP, all his clients and the rest of the pension industry are all mugs.

I doubt you've even met him.

Forgive me, but I shall trust my own judgement on this one.

[Insane]

3 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

You're so desperate to shoot down my arguments you're not really reading them, but rather muddling up my views on what I think SHOULD happen versus my suggestions to government on how to implement what THEY think should happen.

You said you were with jiltetgen in one post then go on to say the state pension should rise above CPI. That is a contradiction. 

5 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But matching it to the greater of three things DOES make it uncontrolled, because you never know which will be bigger and by how much.

No it does not two of them are events that will happen the other is a set amount. Leave out the word uncontrolled. 

6 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

My view is that you should decide your philosophy: EITHER pensions should be linked to earnings (i.e. what taxes and workers living standards are based on) OR it should be linked to inflation (i.e. what pensioners spend it on).  But not both.

Well earnings are linked to CPI not saying they match exactly but if CPI increases X earnings will increase to by a similar amount. 

8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

It isn't.  It was just me saying that IF someone wanted to increase the state pension by 10% in real terms, but it was too expensive to do it all at once, then 1% a year for 10 years is a better way to do it in a controlled manner than a triple lock that could easily overshoot the target next year or take decades to get there.

If CPI and earnings were flat it would be increased by 2.5% so would take 4 years to get there instead of 10 but it would get to where you want it faster surely that would be good. 

10 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

an uncontrolled and unsustainable manner.

Here we go again repeat repeat repeat , how many more times it is not uncontrolled. 

[scottbeard]

16 hours ago, jiltedjen said:

State pension should be linked to wages.

talk of removing unaffordable unfair triple lock and replacing it via a link to working peoples wages. Say pensions as a fraction of average wage. makes sense. The idea is to make state pensions sustainable.

15 hours ago, scottbeard said:

so I’m with jiltedjen and Steve Webb on this.  Make it something reasonable but then stick to it 

1 hour ago, Insane said:

You said you were with jiltetgen in one post then go on to say the state pension should rise above CPI. That is a contradiction. 

No it isn't.

It's possible to agree with one thing a person says, whilst also not agreeing with EVERYTHING that they said and that isn't a contradiction.

I agree with him that it should be linked to a single metric not the greater of three metrics.

I disagree with him that the overall level should fall.

I thought you were clever enough to understand that nuance, but clearly not.

[winkie]

If it was linked to wages existing pensioners would be receiving hardly anything today....not enough to eat........linking pensions to wages is only saying should get out of it what put into it, millions have had out many fold more than they ever contributed.......so therefore against it, only more division and inequality.......inflation is the killer.

[Nick Cash]

4 hours ago, andrewwk said:

if you are in the segment so poor that you have saved nothing during your working life, then I guess you are lucky to live in a country that will still provide you with a minimum standard of living in retirement. Alternatively, why not means test the state pension and remove it for wealthy pensioners, using the savings to boost the pensions of the poorest?

There are additional benefits that the poorest pensioners are eligible for already. 
 

Pensioners also pay tax. My father, a dementia ridden husk of his former self, is now a higher rate tax payer because of the frozen tax thresholds. Ridiculous - his annual self funded care is £70k more than income. Do we get any help (or even advice)? Do we ******.

[jiltedjen]

The reason I want it sustainable is that makes it easier to plan for the future.

the current triple lock if carried on risks actually destroying state pensions as it kills the host.

It could be 30-40 years until I get a state pension. I rather it is there when I get there.

at the moment the greedy old are doing everything they can to ensure my pension either starts after I die of old age, or that its not there at all.

it should be means tested now, the vast majority don’t need it and won’t get it, or get a reduced rate. 

if failure to save over a whole life the poor pensioners should be kept going but only that (so that way it’s fair to those who did pay in) 

at the moment giving insane rises to the richest cohort is just going to kill state pensions off fully. It’s going to be politically toxic to keep shovelling money to the richest cohort when the under 40’s are getting considerably poorer and having genuine real issues. 

imagine if state pensions were instead locked to say 20% of average wage.

then the voting to make everyone’s life better will start. If the only way to get more pension isto make everyone’s life better, then we would get policies for the greater good.

which would be a vast improvement on people voting for the best bribes (triple lock).

the key is the link to actual wages. so if average wages fall, so do pensions. 

[Insane]

3 hours ago, scottbeard said:

I thought you were clever enough to understand that nuance, but clearly not.

Sarcasm. You still don't like people having a different opinion to you do you.  

[scottbeard]

15 minutes ago, Insane said:

You still don't like people having a different opinion to you do you.  

People are entitled to their opinions.  They are not entitled to misrepresent my opinions, which is what you did above and why I corrected you.

[Insane]

3 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

People are entitled to their opinions.  They are not entitled to misrepresent my opinions, which is what you did above and why I corrected you.

No in my opinion I don't agree and as you have just stated I am entitled to that opinion. Now let's see if you can accept that and not reply. 

[scottbeard]

29 minutes ago, Insane said:

No in my opinion I don't agree and as you have just stated I am entitled to that opinion. Now let's see if you can accept that and not reply. 

I've noticed with you that you simply MUST have the last word in every discussion, so let's test that.

See if YOU can bring yourself to not reply...

[Insane]

52 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I've noticed with you that you simply MUST have the last word in every discussion, so let's test that.

See if YOU can bring yourself to not reply...

LOL

Have you been looking in the mirror?

[scottbeard]

9 minutes ago, Insane said:

LOL

Have you been looking in the mirror?

Point proven.  You simply cannot let anyone else have the last word.

On this thread you tried to dismantle my comments on the state pension, but have failed.  So instead of saying i'm wrong you have:

- rebadged your dismantling as merely "your opinion"
- tried to badge "opinions" as some sort of sacrosanct entity that cannot be challenged
- goaded me that I can't possibly resist replying to try and double bluff me into not replying

That really is school playground level debating - "anyway that's what I think, and it's a free country so I'm allowed to say it, and if you say anything else you're a loser".

But - as noted above - you simply cannot let anyone else have the last word, so I await yet another comment from you.  However, let's be clear, you lost the argument on state pensions many posts above so have switched to attacking me instead.  I came to talk about pensions, and others don't want to read us bickering, so have the last word.  Go on, enjoy it.  Let's see if you can wrap it up before the bell goes for your next lesson, though, eh?

[Insane]

20 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Point proven.  You simply cannot let anyone else have the last word.

On this thread you tried to dismantle my comments on the state pension, but have failed.  So instead of saying i'm wrong you have:

- rebadged your dismantling as merely "your opinion"
- tried to badge "opinions" as some sort of sacrosanct entity that cannot be challenged
- goaded me that I can't possibly resist replying to try and double bluff me into not replying

That really is school playground level debating - "anyway that's what I think, and it's a free country so I'm allowed to say it, and if you say anything else you're a loser".

But - as noted above - you simply cannot let anyone else have the last word, so I await yet another comment from you.  However, let's be clear, you lost the argument on state pensions many posts above so have switched to attacking me instead.  I came to talk about pensions, and others don't want to read us bickering, so have the last word.  Go on, enjoy it.  Let's see if you can wrap it up before the bell goes for your next lesson, though, eh?

I did not bother to read the above I am just going to post this 🤣

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Point proven.  You simply cannot let anyone else have the last word.

On this thread you tried to dismantle my comments on the state pension, but have failed.  So instead of saying i'm wrong you have:

- rebadged your dismantling as merely "your opinion"
- tried to badge "opinions" as some sort of sacrosanct entity that cannot be challenged
- goaded me that I can't possibly resist replying to try and double bluff me into not replying

That really is school playground level debating - "anyway that's what I think, and it's a free country so I'm allowed to say it, and if you say anything else you're a loser".

But - as noted above - you simply cannot let anyone else have the last word, so I await yet another comment from you.  However, let's be clear, you lost the argument on state pensions many posts above so have switched to attacking me instead.  I came to talk about pensions, and others don't want to read us bickering, so have the last word.  Go on, enjoy it.  Let's see if you can wrap it up before the bell goes for your next lesson, though, eh?

Yes. He is an idiot. Generally, we ignore him.

[TenYearToGetMyMoneyBack]

22 hours ago, Trampa501 said:

Not sure how they do it, but the state pension is far higher in countries like France and Spain, so long as you have put in the right contributions over your lifetime. 

The last point is the key one. In countries like France the state pension is peoples main pension, paid for by contributions they make while working. Thinking about my own, company pension, the standard employee contribution has been 8% for about the last 20 years. Then my employer throws in about another 10%. So to provide similar benefits through the state taxes / national insurance would have to rise by that sort of amount. 

Of course here people have the option of paying less in. At the turn of the century a younger colleague decided that buying a new Subaru WRX was a better use of his money than joining the company pension. I hope he won't complain about the size of his state pension when he retires in about a decades time (if he can afford to).

[steve99]

On 13/12/2023 at 18:49, jiltedjen said:

State pension should be linked to wages.

talk of removing unaffordable unfair triple lock and replacing it via a link to working peoples wages. Say pensions as a fraction of average wage. makes sense. The idea is to make state pensions sustainable.

imagine the moans of the oldies when their fate is suddenly tied to the wider population, where they will have to vote for the greater good instead of who gives them the biggest bribe.

story on daily mail money section. 

brilliant idea, I have said the same before on here. 

However, as it stands our state pension is one of the lowest in the western world. I have a min wage friend in Austria who's state pension is linked to his wages (as well as much lower living costs, eg his rent including energy and heating, council tax etc is less than we pay for ongoing costs  in an outrightly owned but modest, cheap house in the midlands never mind his transport costs of 30Euros a month for the whole city). His pension will be much higher than ours than ours. I agree in principal but we need to also get rid of employer pensions at the same time. Min pension in that case needs to be far higher.