The UK must cancel it's triple lock for OAP

[TorquayFan]

With an election coming shortly, it's MO that neither the incumbent Tories nor the aspiring Labour Party are free to take the right action. The 'triple lock' has served it's purpose - through it's existence TR has done much to improve the lot of UK OAP's, with a 10% increase last year and 8% to come next month.

 

Changing demographics make continuance of TR unwise. The UK needs to look after it's working population FIRST or there'll be nothing more for anyone else.

 

Pensioners should accept the Govt. increasing pensions by RPI movements only, that in itself is a 'gold-plated' position. If average wage increases exceed RPI, Pensioners can be reassured that the increasing tax take would be making their position more secure.

 

Democracy can often be undermined by the need to get votes - we all need to see the wider picture.

 

(BTW the empassioned question of OAP increases to UK Pensioners in Thailand is not relevant here. Thanks)

[Rampant Rabbit]

Why not  just execute  all pensioners, I mean they only worked 40+  years, these youngsters  all want something for nothing, how  about they pay more for a  pension plan now and stop whining.

[Georgealbert]

Here is an alternative view, which supports the needs for the triple lock, and some history of why it was brought in.

 

“This briefing sets out the background to State Pension increases and why we need to at least keep the ‘triple lock’ to protect future generations as well as current pensioners.”

https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2023/12/Briefing-Uprating-of-the-state-pension.pdf

 

 

[Rampant Rabbit]

Isnt the Uk pension almost the worst in Europe already.

The govt should really have  invested the pension money , instead its  just  another pot of  money for them to use "now"

[noobexpat]

Maybe they should make it means tested.

My parents don't need it and i won't either.

 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

Maybe they should make it means tested.

My parents don't need it and i won't either.

 

Oh, wow....................................

[noobexpat]

38 minutes ago, transam said:

Oh, wow....................................

 

The UK has given me a lot. Happy to give back 😇

[transam]

3 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

The UK has given me a lot. Happy to give back 😇

Oh, wow..............

[noobexpat]

Just now, transam said:

Oh, wow..............

 

Wow, thanks ......

[TorquayFan]

Rampant your first reply is frankly, brainless. BTW I am an OAP myself.

 

Do you realise that your NI contributions paid in over the years have already been spent - did you never benefit from a school, a Hospital or a road etc. ? OA Pensions too are paid each year from the Govt's current tax take and borrowings.

 

Your contributions are not sitting in a Rampant Rabbit bucket - it's not like a Private Pension Scheme where monies are paid into an investment on your behalf.

 

You say, "these youngsters all want something for nothing". So I ask if the Pensioners are right to grumble now, many of them sitting in properties the Youngsters will never be able to aspire to.

 

Re. your 2nd, "The govt should really have invested the pension money, instead its just another pot of  money for them to use now". Precisely. You do get it. But if that had NOT been the case, they would have been compelled to INCREASE your other taxes over the years.

 

How can you expect those working now and paying higher than ever taxes, take on a higher burden still, to indulge you now when they will be taking an OAP at a higher age than we (?) did . . . . .

[TorquayFan]

George thanks. An interesting history and one would expect 'UNISON' to follow that line. But this, "we need to at least keep the ‘triple lock’ to protect future generations as well as current pensioners" is a wholly self-serving Unison assumption.

 

Noob - you are spot on. The State OAP should be means tested of course, like many other Benefits . . . . some OAP's have so much wealth and income they just do not need the State Pension. Why tax and disincentivise Yougsters to pay it?

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

Isnt the Uk pension almost the worst in Europe already.

The govt should really have  invested the pension money , instead its  just  another pot of  money for them to use "now"

There is no pot. That's not how it works.

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

George thanks. An interesting history and one would expect 'UNISON' to follow that line. But this, "we need to at least keep the ‘triple lock’ to protect future generations as well as current pensioners" is a wholly self-serving Unison assumption.

 

Noob - you are spot on. The State OAP should be means tested of course, like many other Benefits . . . . some OAP's have so much wealth and income they just do not need the State Pension. Why tax and disincentivise Yougsters to pay it?

It is means tested.

 

The more years you pay, the more you get.

 

As for tax, many pensioners are tax payers. 

[DaLa]

It's an interesting and serious subject, there's a good deal of truism and reality to the problem funding the OAP. However I presume the OP isn't running for office in the UK or proposing this on behalf of any political party manifesto, bye bye deposit.

[TorquayFan]

Avin Laff

 

1. OAP is not means tested for the purpose of disallowing payment to those with 'sufficient' wealth or income. Why not Save that money and pay it to those who need it much more?

 

2. Yes the more you pay in the more you get, but that's not means testing!

 

3. I realise many OAP including myself are Taxpayers !!

 

DaLa - precisely ! My first sentence was "With an election coming shortly, it's MO that neither the incumbent Tories nor the aspiring Labour Party are free to take the right action". ATB

[scottiejohn]

6 hours ago, noobexpat said:

Maybe they should make it means tested.

My parents don't need it and i won't either.

 

Obviously a rich show off who does not care about others who have less than your so called "declared" wealth?

Think of others, if you can, who are less well off than "you claim" to be!

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Avin Laff

 

1. OAP is not means tested for the purpose of disallowing payment to those with 'sufficient' wealth or income. Why not Save that money and pay it to those who need it much more?

 

2. Yes the more you pay in the more you get, but that's not means testing!

 

3. I realise many OAP including myself are Taxpayers !!

 

DaLa - precisely ! My first sentence was "With an election coming shortly, it's MO that neither the incumbent Tories nor the aspiring Labour Party are free to take the right action". ATB

Why should people be denied an entitlement just because they've also self funded their retirement?

 

Let's all tell the government whether we'll self fund when we all start work and pay a lesser rate of tax and NI as a result. That's fair, isn't it?

Edited March 25 by youreavinalaff

[TorquayFan]

Avin Laff

 

If OA Pensioner has made NI contributions as required then I suppose the OA Pension does become an entitlement. However, as the NIC simply goes into the National tax take, rather than being set aside/invested to pay your pension, in fact it's been long spent elsewhere maybe to your benefit in other ways.

 

Better IMO to treat OAP as a benefit that could be withheld when the benefit is not needed and allocated to those in penury. Just makes sense to me.

 

Your second proposal is novel but we would then have to have separate Income tax/NI rates for those in or out of 'self-funding' - sounds very complicated.

 

ATB

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

30 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Avin Laff

 

If OA Pensioner has made NI contributions as required then I suppose the OA Pension does become an entitlement. However, as the NIC simply goes into the National tax take, rather than being set aside/invested to pay your pension, in fact it's been long spent elsewhere maybe to your benefit in other ways.

 

Better IMO to treat OAP as a benefit that could be withheld when the benefit is not needed and allocated to those in penury. Just makes sense to me.

 

Your second proposal is novel but we would then have to have separate Income tax/NI rates for those in or out of 'self-funding' - sounds very complicated.

 

ATB

 

 

Nothing novel or complicated about it.

 

Why pay for something you're not going to get?

 

Sad state of affairs at Plainmoor, BTW. I was at Boots and Laces a while back. Loooong faces all round. However, that's another conversation for another time.

[TorquayFan]

C Smith - can you not read? . . . (BTW the empassioned question of OAP increases to UK Pensioners in Thailand is not relevant here. Thanks)

 

Whilst I sympathise with your cause it's bl**dy ignorant to paste that carp on this thread when asked not too. Don't you have another thread to go to ?

 

Ah, but I see a link! Maybe IF we didn't pay OAP to Folks with 'sufficient' wealth and income in retirement, we could afford to help your half million.

 

 

[TorquayFan]

Avin Laff - "Why pay for something you're not going to get?

 

As I suggested before, you did get it! BUT in the form of maybe roads, schools, Hospitals etc. ad nauseam. It's just another Tax used to pay current stuff.

 

But why give OAP to those amply provided already?

 

Ah 'Boots and Laces' - erstwhile I knew Steve Cooper, many Fans all time favourite . . . . GN

[noobexpat]

4 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Obviously a rich show off who does not care about others who have less than your so called "declared" wealth?

Think of others, if you can, who are less well off than "you claim" to be!

 

Ok i'll keep it then 555

Honestly, i think people are more retarded than ever before.

[noobexpat]

4 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why should people be denied an entitlement just because they've also self funded their retirement?

 

 

Because i would be quite happy if it went to someone who needed it more than me.

 

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, noobexpat said:

 

Because i would be quite happy if it went to someone who needed it more than me.

 

Donate yours to charity, then. 

 

 

[topt]

1 minute ago, noobexpat said:

Because i would be quite happy if it went to someone who needed it more than me.

So give to charity or find a cause to fund.........

[youreavinalaff]

32 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

As I suggested before, you did get it! BUT in the form of maybe roads, schools, Hospitals etc. ad nauseam. It's just another Tax used to pay current stuff.

As has everyone. Some more than others.

 

By all means give your pension away. Just don't expect others to. 

 

Should everyone who can afford private healthcare not use NHS?

 

Should everyone who can afford private education for their kids not use government run schools?

 

 

[noobexpat]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Donate yours to charity, then. 

 

 

Could do.

But it seems that spirit isn't shared by others who also don't need it.

So why do you insist on it if you don’t need it? Be honest, is it some weird political nonsense. It usually is!

[youreavinalaff]

26 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

Could do.

But it seems that spirit isn't shared by others who also don't need it.

So why do you insist on it if you don’t need it? Be honest, is it some weird political nonsense. It usually is!

No. Not political.

 

I'm  saving and planing for my retirement. Should be in a few years when I'm 60. I'll have enough to have a good time, help the kids out when they want to buy a property and leave a nice inheritance. When my state pension arrives when I'm 67 it will be mine, to do with what I wish.

[noobexpat]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. Not political.

 

I'm  saving and planing for my retirement. Should be in a few years when I'm 60. I'll have enough to have a good time, help the kids out when they want to buy a property and leave a nice inheritance. When my state pension arrives when I'm 67 it will be mine, to do with what I wish.

 

Fair enough, that sounds all very reasonable.

I wouldn't put you in the category of not needing it though ...which is what i was referring to.

 

[youreavinalaff]

19 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

Fair enough, that sounds all very reasonable.

I wouldn't put you in the category of not needing it though ...which is what i was referring to.

 

Without it I'll  need to be less frivolous. I like the idea of frivolity as I get older. I've worked hard in my life. Looking forward to having more than enough money to do what I want.

 

I could do without state pension but, seeing as it's there, I plan to enjoy it.