Burnham
- Thread starter briantrumpet
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Psamathe
Squire
The purpose of ending the Triple Lock is to reduce the State Pension costs. This means whatever replaces it will mean less money going to those on the State Pension.
Most people will be getting full state pension or close to it irrespective of their other sources on income eg a retired warehouse worker with no savings, no investments, no private pension will be getting the same amount as a retired plc company director with >£1m savings & investments, a £90k a year private pension as well as the same State Pension. Which of those two will be most impacted by changes to reduce the amount paid out in State Pensions?
FishFright
Well-Known Member
To be tried by a jury of your peers and not by a government is central to my idea of justice.
Pblakeney
Shaman
I think that you are going to be disappointed.
Andy has already said that any savings would be put to social care, which is mostly pensioners.
Ian H
Pharaoh
Yebbut, only those pensioners who don't have additional income.
Pblakeney
Shaman
Still going to those on the state pension though.
Ian H
Pharaoh
Some of them, as I said.
Pblakeney
Shaman
Yeahbut I was addressing Psamathe's point that less would be going to pensioners. It won't.
It'll just be diverted to different pensioners through different means, but still going to pensioners. Some pensioners if it pleases you.
Ian H
Pharaoh
That doesn't make sense. Currently, pensioners on just the state pension get some benefits. Those with additional earnings don't. If the pension rises by less in future, those on just the state pension will get some benefits, those with additional earnings won't, but the the state pension element of their earnings will decrease.
Pblakeney
Shaman
Andy has said that any savings on pension payments will be going towards care, i.e. mostly pensioners.
Anyone hoping for a tax cut is going to be disappointed.
Mr Celine
Über Member
By 'public sector' do you mean both funded and unfunded pensions?
The DB public sector scheme I'm a member of is over 130% in surplus.
All the other Scottish LGPS schemes are also in surplus.
Psamathe
Squire
Maybe a bit like cutting help to the most vulnerable to pay for their health treatments under the NHS. We should be providing basic minimum for those dependent on state pension alone and that means both pension and Social Care. Not one or other.
And Social Care is far broader than just the needs of pensioners.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
With the exception of local government public sector pensions are unfunded. My Civil Service pension is paid for by those in the service today, not from cash put aside when I was working. Trying to apply a model that works for funded schemes to an unfunded system inevitably produces egregious and unwanted outcomes. See how the cap affected senior Doctors.
Moving the public sector to a DC system, unless government is prepared to pull the rug from a lot of people late in their careers, won't produce meaningful savings.
bobzmyunkle
Guru
Yet it's been done in the private sector. Are they not motivated by savings?
The 'rug' isn't pulled. The DB bit to date is protected and future donations are DC.
Dorset Boy
Über Member
Utter nonsense. Why are there no DB schemes open to future accrual in the private sector if they weren't more expensive for the employer than a DC arrangement?
You close the DB scheme to future accrual and move everyone to DC from that point forward.
Such a move will produce savings over time which is the whole point. Of course those savings will be smaller in the first decade or so.
Fire Brigade Pension is a 37.6% contribution by employers!
Teachers is 28.7% for employers
LGPS is 16.6% for employers
All on gross pensionable earnings, compared to 3% of qualifying (band) earnings for auto enrolment.
