Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
But not until after their term ends and there has to be a GE.
What practical difference does it make whether abolition is passed in this parliament or in first day of the one elected in 2029?
Burnham
- Thread starter briantrumpet
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
But not until after their term ends and there has to be a GE.
What practical difference does it make whether abolition is passed in this parliament or in first day of the one elected in 2029?
Psamathe
Squire
To me a lot in that Labour passing a law means they have ended the Triple Lock. Any Governemnt can make. changes to the law but Labour will have made the changes to end it despite a manifesto pledge not to end it.
Plus, the current Government term runs until Aug 2029 and the proposed abandoning of the Triple Lock is propsed as endin 2030 which meand end 2029-2030 tax year which means April 2030 which gives no subsequent Government time to change it back.
All tax changes have a notice period so it's that the change has been made that is isgnificant rathger than the date of the change.
eg All budgets specify tax beyond the current electoral term and those changes apply. Any subsequent Government can make changes but it is still the changing Government that has made the change..
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
However you play with semantics the triple lock remains in place until after current manifesto expires.
The April uprate in 2030 will be based on figures in September 2029 but an incoming government in August 2029 committed to restore the triple lock has until (say) March 2030 to legislate.
All they need is a one line bill restoring the status quo ante. Parliament can get through in an afternoon.
Pblakeney
Shaman
How quaint.
Psamathe
Squire
To restore an abandoned Triple lock in reality would need a bidget which woiuld need OBR to have time to make projections, to be scheduled. And you can't keep pensioners hanging on a thread over their pension increases until the day before they get it and you can't give DWP 12 hrs notice of the rates from tomorrow.
Changes to law by previous Parliaments seems something that is slow and takes a lot of motivation eg Climate Change legal commitments are proving to be a real nuisance for both the previous Conservative Gov. (eg new drilling licences that granted being overturned by coiurts) as well as current Government eg Overseas Aid spending. Many of the "problems" or constraints go away if they just abandoned the problem laws (eg Climate Change laws or overseas aid laws).
Psamathe
Squire
Maybe you should have (also) highlighted "Trust in Burnham sticking to his word?" - being equally unrealistic.
Last edited:
secretsqirrel
spiteful class warrior
I think your expectations of party manifestos may be a little lofty.
They are not legal and binding and always subject to change.
Psamathe
Squire
I agree but only very recently Burnham said he was sticking to those undertakings. Was he lying when he said that? Or is he all-over the place in deciding policy? - neither reflects well on him.
Pross
Guru
I’ll never understand the rationale behind the link to wage increase. With the other two pensions are guaranteed to at least match inflation and, in times of low inflation, grow faster. The rate of wage increase seems completely irrelevant. I don’t see why it is considered so sacrosanct.
Psamathe
Squire
I agree. It's inflation that impacts what pensioners can afford and what they can't, not what those employed are earning.
It was the Pensions Commission that recommended the earnings increase be used as State Pensions had been falling behind.
I get one Civil Service pension as well as DWP state pension and that Civil Service pension increases based on inflation. When I get round to taking my private pensions, if I buy an annuity that would have the option to increase based on inflation (no option to increase based on earnings).
One shortcoming of the inflation based increases are that CPI does not reflect different lifestyles eg most dependent on only the State Pension don't take many airline flights but are much more impacted by food and energy price increases (food inflation has recently been far above the CPI figures).
I see basing increases wage growth seems the worst of all worlds.
My concern about abandoning the Triple Lock is, whilst such changes won't significantly affect me, it will have a massive impact on those dependent on only the State Pension. For those with no other income it really isn't generous.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
I don't think it's that complicated. An incoming government would probably have a (mini) budget in short order.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
What would today's pension be if there was no triple lock?
Psamathe
Squire
Personally I don't think that relevant when looking at the Triple Lock. eg if when the Triple Lock was introduced the State Pension was too low to keep pensioners out of poverty then pensions needed increasing.
To me what is important is what the State Pension is today for those dependent on only the State Pension for their income. Since the Triple Lock was introduced some time back Pensioners have been disproportionally impacted by specific price increases eg food and energy which are a significant component of their expenditure whereas the CPI includes all sorts of other costs which they don't purchase.
To me, if the State Pension is not sustainable (really, not just what some with personal ideology keep pushing) then far better to ensure those entirely dependent on it get enough to live on so maybe look at eg means testing the benefit so those with significant additional private incomes (savings and private pensions) don't get so much from the state. Whilst means testing has some (potential) nasty "unintended" impacts, if we really need to reduce the overall costs better to cut from those with less need than those already struggling. Or maybe reduce tax breaks on massive private pension pots eg somebody who has built-up a private pension fund of £1m (paying no tax on contributions) can cash in £250,000 completely tax free. Maybe reduce the 25% and/or maybe cap the tax free amount eg £50,000 tax free.
Plenty of ways to recover money from "those with broadest shoulders" whereas abandoning the Triple Lock will also be hitting those without broad shoulders already struggling.
Dorset Boy
Über Member
There's already a cap of the tax free cash from private pensions - masrginally higher than the £250k you mention, at £268,500, based on 25% of the last lifetime allowance.
Plenty of public sector pensions would exceed the £1m so why are you wanting to go after private pensions when public sector salary related ones are the platinum standard and far more generous than defined contribution pensions in the private sector?
Switch the public sector to DC on the same basis as Workplace Pension requirements instead.
Plenty of public sector pensions would exceed the £1m so why are you wanting to go after private pensions when public sector salary related ones are the platinum standard and far more generous than defined contribution pensions in the private sector?
Switch the public sector to DC on the same basis as Workplace Pension requirements instead.
Pblakeney
Shaman
I was making a general point about all parties whilst you are being personal.
Separate issues.
