Burnham

[Dorset Boy]

There is a population bulge and peak bulge is hitting retirement right now, and then it starts to drop off. However that bulge will be alive and in retirement for the next 20+ years with a relatively smaller work force to pay the pensions (because Labour forgot to properly fund the State Pension when it was set up).

It really doesn't take much for a Government to decide what rate to increase the State Pension by - it is literally a one liner, and needs no input from the OBR or anyone else.

The triple lock served its purpose and reform is right and logical. I do think Pross's idea of a Pensioners' Inflation measure is a good one, which the ONS could publish alongside CPI each month. So the lock could be 2.5% or PPI, with a Government having the discretion to increase beyond those measures if finances permitted,

 

[Psamathe]

I do think Pross's idea of a Pensioners' Inflation measure is a good one, which the ONS could publish alongside CPI each month. So the lock could be 2.5% or PPI, with a Government having the discretion to increase beyond those measures if finances permitted,

I agree but can't see "... if finances permitted" happening in the foreseeable future.

My view is that pension increases based on an inflation measure makes far more sense than Burnham's proposed scheme. I see Burnham's proposal as avoiding pensioners falling behind employed where maybe more important for those dependent on State Pension alone is that they don't fall behind in terms of their living costs.

A Pensioner Inflation Index makes sense but it would need to reflect basic living expenses and exclude the lifestyle some pensioners manage with their significant private pensions, savings, etc. eg flights and holidays to Bali, world cruises, etc.

But far better to do various alternatives (as raised above like means testing, tax reliefs, Public Sector pensions, etc.)

Although I believe the "or 2.5%" has cut in on occasions I see it as useful when first implemented (ie to gradually improve pensions) but I can't see it's relevance these days.

 

[Pblakeney]

Do they? Or are they just beleieving what they've been told by those with their own agendas?

Pretty much everyone I know, all mainstream media, and all social media. So yes, most do.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Pretty much everyone I know, all mainstream media, and all social media. So yes, most do.

Case proven m'lud

 

[bobzmyunkle]

This one raises my opinion of him.
BBC News - Burnham scraps controversial plans to curb jury trials
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crq5nd9dgz68o

 

[Psamathe]

Pretty much everyone I know, all mainstream media, and all social media. So yes, most do.

Everyone you know & Social Media: Are they just reading the press? How many have looked at alternatives?
Politicians:

Labour: just can't afford the benefits cost.​

Conservative: All have massive private income, savings, etc. and just want Gov. to spend less (on the less well off)​

​

I'd thought Labour Manifesto made it clear about those with "broadest shoulders" yet abandoning the Triple Lock will most severly impact those without broad shoulders and those with "the broadest shoulders" will hardly notice (given broader shoulders menas more significant income from private pensions, savings, investments, etc.)

But tax private pension contributions or reduce tax free lump sums would impact those with broadest shoulders/wealthier. Means test would impact those with broader shoulders and already very comfortably off. Given the Private Sector pensions, those getting them will be more comfortably off yet avoid reforming them and just impact those already struggling.

 

[Pblakeney]

Everyone you know & Social Media: Are they just reading the press? How many have looked at alternatives?
Politicians:

Labour: just can't afford the benefits cost.​

Conservative: All have massive private income, savings, etc. and just want Gov. to spend less (on the less well off)​

​

I'd thought Labour Manifesto made it clear about those with "broadest shoulders" yet abandoning the Triple Lock will most severly impact those without broad shoulders and those with "the broadest shoulders" will hardly notice (given broader shoulders menas more significant income from private pensions, savings, investments, etc.)

But tax private pension contributions or reduce tax free lump sums would impact those with broadest shoulders/wealthier. Means test would impact those with broader shoulders and already very comfortably off. Given the Private Sector pensions, those getting them will be more comfortably off yet avoid reforming them and just impact those already struggling.

I cannot think of anyone arguing to maintain the triple lock apart from those benefitting directly from it, or those using it as a political weapon like Badenoch. The proposal will have little effect imo anyway, plus it reads like you want pensions reformed so this is the first step?

 

[Psamathe]

I cannot think of anyone arguing to maintain the triple lock apart from those benefitting directly from it, or those using it as a political weapon like Badenoch. The proposal will have little effect imo anyway, plus it reads like you want pensions reformed so this is the first step?

Except, I'm arguing for it and abandoning it won't make much difference to me. So maybe think again?

I accept there may well be a need to reduce the overall benefit bill but maybe a better way to get those unable to work for sickness some treatment and get them healthy and back to work (reduces benefits bill, improves national productivity and helps treated individuals = win-win-win). And even if politicians can't think about the real problem and they want to go after pensioners, lots of ways to reduce the pensions bill that would focus on "those with broadest shoulders" rather than biggest impact on those already struggling.

 

[Pblakeney]

Except, I'm arguing for it and abandoning it won't make much difference to me. So maybe think again?

I accept there may well be a need to reduce the overall benefit bill but maybe a better way to get those unable to work for sickness some treatment and get them healthy and back to work (reduces benefits bill, improves national productivity and helps treated individuals = win-win-win). And even if politicians can't think about the real problem and they want to go after pensioners, lots of ways to reduce the pensions bill that would focus on "those with broadest shoulders" rather than biggest impact on those already struggling.

Fair. I can't see why but everyone is entitled to their opinions. In my view "triple lock" has just become a political stick to use as required.
The proposal will get rid of that stick without affecting anything much in a meaningful way. The state pension will still be rising.

 

[briantrumpet]

Fair. I can't see why but everyone is entitled to their opinions. In my view "triple lock" has just become a political stick to use as required.
The proposal will get rid of that stick without affecting anything much in a meaningful way. The state pension will still be rising.

I think it's one of the things that Burnham is deliberately forcing other parties/factors to argue against, in order to flush out their inconsistencies. If he does things Tories supported (or did nothing about) while in power, it's political ammunition.

 

[Psamathe]

I think it's one of the things that Burnham is deliberately forcing other parties/factors to argue against, in order to flush out their inconsistencies. If he does things Tories supported (or did nothing about) while in power, it's political ammunition.

If he is doing it as political manoeuvring (which given the alternatives I suspect he might be), I wonder if it will potentially affect his next General Election. My guess is that those who will be most impacted will be more likely to be Labour voters. Burnham making the implementation some way off means it probably won't be reflected in the general polling at the moment but nearer the next General election is also nearer the change and less well-off pensioners seeing they'll soon be losing the Triple Lock might be more inclined to vote for alternatives - not in vast numbers but maybe enough to affect marginal seats?

Maybe also better off pensioners seeing they are paying historically high taxation and with frozen income tax thresholds paying more and more and yet they will in future they think they will be getting even less in State Pension ...

 

[secretsqirrel]

I think it's one of the things that Burnham is deliberately forcing other parties/factors to argue against, in order to flush out their inconsistencies. If he does things Tories supported (or did nothing about) while in power, it's political ammunition.

Other than that, if any other party is in a position to be able to reinstate the triple lock after 2030, then it will mean that Burnham and Healey will have done a miraculous job with the economy. Can’t see it myself, not due to their their efforts but we will be living in a post-trumpocalypse era.

 

[First Aspect]

It doesn’t feel beyond the realms of reality to create pensioners index for inflation based on their typical ‘shopping basket’. If it’s felt pensions need increasing relative to that simply say it’s going up by the pensioners price index plus x%.

Worthers originals, bran supplements, cardigans, that sort of thing?

 

[Pblakeney]

If he is doing it as political manoeuvring (which given the alternatives I suspect he might be), I wonder if it will potentially affect his next General Election. My guess is that those who will be most impacted will be more likely to be Labour voters. Burnham making the implementation some way off means it probably won't be reflected in the general polling at the moment but nearer the next General election is also nearer the change and less well-off pensioners seeing they'll soon be losing the Triple Lock might be more inclined to vote for alternatives - not in vast numbers but maybe enough to affect marginal seats?

Maybe also better off pensioners seeing they are paying historically high taxation and with frozen income tax thresholds paying more and more and yet they will in future they think they will be getting even less in State Pension ...

I'd hold fire on making too many assumptions this far out from the next election.
There are a few budgets to be taken care of for starters, plus whatever Donnie has in store for the next two years.

 

[briantrumpet]

Worthers originals, bran supplements, cardigans, that sort of thing?

Meerschaums, smoking jackets, slippers.