Ok, there has been much criticism of late of the triple lock. It is held up to be the stick by which the elderly beat the young. Whenever it is mentioned, the cry is about hundreds of pounds extra going into pensioners pockets. So, let me, a pensioner, give my penny worth to the discussion.
1. The triple lock is a percentage increase. It cannot be expressed as a monetary value.
2. Not everyone receives the full amount quoted.
3. Not every pension is uplifted by the triple lock
Frankly, as someone impacted by nunber 3, above, the mite I receive in uplift is nowhere near the figures trumpetted and far below the annual personal tax allowance, and just above the pension credit limit, so spare me, I will not be thriwing my money about any time soon.
However, leaving my personal situation aside, if the demand to scrap the triple lock gains traction, then so be it. But, there is an alternative position which no-one appears to want to discuss - what about cancelling it for all new recipients. Leave the uplift in place for existing recipients, but close it to anyone not yet taking their state pension.
Then, as we all die off, the young can once again look at their older family without getting told we are holding them back.
It was clearly stated in the article that people like me, I am 70, and you are attempting to take £291,000 more out in pensions than we contributed.
Why do you feel so entitled to demand that younger people pay so much more in taxes than you contributed for your own retirement?
30 years ago I alienated myself with lots of people over the age of 50 that I thought that the post-war generations would go down in history as the greediest and most entitled people in the history of England, thanks for confirming my point.
Ok, there has been much criticism of late of the triple lock. It is held up to be the stick by which the elderly beat the young. Whenever it is mentioned, the cry is about hundreds of pounds extra going into pensioners pockets. So, let me, a pensioner, give my penny worth to the discussion.
1. The triple lock is a percentage increase. It cannot be expressed as a monetary value.
2. Not everyone receives the full amount quoted.
3. Not every pension is uplifted by the triple lock
Frankly, as someone impacted by nunber 3, above, the mite I receive in uplift is nowhere near the figures trumpetted and far below the annual personal tax allowance, and just above the pension credit limit, so spare me, I will not be thriwing my money about any time soon.
However, leaving my personal situation aside, if the demand to scrap the triple lock gains traction, then so be it. But, there is an alternative position which no-one appears to want to discuss - what about cancelling it for all new recipients. Leave the uplift in place for existing recipients, but close it to anyone not yet taking their state pension.
Then, as we all die off, the young can once again look at their older family without getting told we are holding them back.
It was clearly stated in the article that people like me, I am 70, and you are attempting to take £291,000 more out in pensions than we contributed.
Why do you feel so entitled to demand that younger people pay so much more in taxes than you contributed for your own retirement?
30 years ago I alienated myself with lots of people over the age of 50 that I thought that the post-war generations would go down in history as the greediest and most entitled people in the history of England, thanks for confirming my point.
Where did I show any thoughts of entitlement? I said by all means cancel it.
"Leave the uplift in place for existing recipients, but close it to anyone not yet taking their state pension."
That seems like a pretty clear argument for pulling up the ladder behind you.
Well it would if my pension benefitted at all from the triple lock