XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc   
   From: jnugent97@mail.com   
      
   On 03/03/2024 08:17 am, useapen wrote:   
      
   > The last Baby Boomer turns 60 this year. Many born between 1946 and 1964   
   > have already retired, and millions more will follow in the coming years,   
   > with the number of people reaching state pension age forecast to hit a   
   > record 800,000 in 2028 for the first time. By then the earliest anyone   
   > will be able to claim their state pension will be 67, up from 66 today.   
      
   [ .. ]   
      
   > RECOMMENDED   
   >   
   > 'I spent a week living on little more than the state pension – it wasn't   
   > much of a life'   
      
   Since no-one has to do that in real life (because of Pension Credit,   
   Council Tax Benefit, Housing benefit and mortgage interest - where   
   applicable - within Pension Credit), one wonders what the author can   
   have set off to prove.   
      
   FWIW, *I* couldn't live on my state pension of £669.76 every four weeks.   
   But since I don't have to, that doesn't prove anything.   
      
   > The policy, which was introduced at the start of the last decade, ensures   
   > that payments to pensioners rise by the highest of 2.5pc, inflation or   
   > earnings growth, whichever is higher.   
      
   No. Not "payments to pensioners", but "the state pension", which is not   
   the only payment made to pensioners. Just as with other means-tested   
   benefits, Pension Credit, Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit and   
   mortgage interest within Pension Credit are subject only to an annual   
   increase at the relevant inflation rate. This year, the   
   (non-means-tested) state pension will increase by a smidgeon over 8%   
   (the increase in earnings) while the means-tested Pension Credit,   
   Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit and mortgage interest within   
   Pension Credit will increase by about 6% (the rise in prices from   
   September 2022 to September 2023). So this year, the incomes of   
   pensioners will not, overall, rise by the same rate as earnings. Parts   
   of them will, but not all of them. They will, however, rise overall by   
   more then the rate of inflation.   
   >   
   > It is understood that the Conservative Party will put the commitment in   
   > its election manifesto.   
   > A Tory source said: “The triple lock is a Conservative Party creation, has   
   > been in every Conservative Party manifesto since we introduced it, and we   
   > will commit to it again.”   
   >   
   > Labour signalled it would do the same and challenged the prime minister to   
   > put the commitment on record.   
      
   Hadn't the Conservative Party just *done* that, as said by "Tory Source"?   
      
   What is the point in asking a party to commit to something they've   
   already committed to?   
      
   > Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, says: “The difference between being   
   > in retirement and being of working age is that when you’re in retirement,   
   > it is very difficult to increase your income. And so I think that   
   > stability and certainty that your income is protected is important.   
      
   > “We’ve always supported the triple lock.”   
   >   
   > A Labour spokesman added: “The Labour Party will always stand up for   
   > working people to have a fair, decent pension and financial security in   
   > retirement.   
      
   So why didn't THEY introduce the Triple Lock some time between 1997 and   
   2010? Or between 1974 and 1979, between 1964 and 1970 or even between   
   1945 and 1951? No-one was stopping them.   
   >   
   > “Rishi Sunak’s government has previously broken their promise to   
   > pensioners and now need to be clear about their intention to maintain the   
   > triple lock, to ensure pensioners’ incomes don’t fall behind what is   
   > needed to give them a decent standard of living.”   
   >   
   > Pensions minister Paul Maynard describes the state pension as a safety net   
   > for millions of people.   
   > “I want to ensure the State Pension remains the foundation of income in   
   > retirement for future generations in a way that it is sustainable and   
   > fair,” he says.   
   > “This Government introduced the triple lock to do just that, and since   
   > 2011 we’ve lifted 200,000 older people out of poverty. With the full rate   
   > of the new state pension rising to £11,500 in April this is vital   
   > additional money for our hard-working pensioners who rely solely on this   
   > income.   
   > “We are taking long term decisions to build a brighter future for millions   
   > – one that delivers for the pensioners of today and tomorrow.”   
   > But not everyone is a fan of the triple lock. Peter Lilley, a former Work   
   > and Pensions Secretary, describes it as “absurdly generous and   
   > unsustainable in the long-term”.   
   > He adds: “Why pensioners should get an increase when neither prices are   
   > going up nor wages are going up is absurd.”   
      
   ?????   
      
   When was there ever a time in living memory when the UK inflation rate   
   was 0%?   
   >   
   > Lord Turnbull says the triple lock is “daft, but terrifically difficult to   
   > get rid of”.   
   > “When we get a shock, an output shock or a prices shock, you suddenly find   
   > you have significantly made the pension more generous,” he adds.   
      
   Or exactly the same real terms "generosity" as before the price rises?   
   >   
   > “But it wasn’t a considered decision, it just happened. It is a very   
   silly   
   > way to do it.”   
   > The Government is committed to reviewing the state pension age again in   
   > the first two years of the next parliament.   
   > Sir Steve Webb, the pensions minister who helped to introduce the policy,   
   > says it’s time to look at government spending as a whole to find solutions   
   > to keep the state pension on a sustainable path.   
   > “There’s lots of things you can do to make the state pension system more   
   > affordable apart from just hiking the pension age. One of which is making   
   > more people of working age economically active,” he says.   
   > The OBR estimates that the total annual tax loss as a result of rising   
   > health-related inactivity and in-work ill-health is likely to stand at   
   > almost £9bn a year. This would be more than enough to cut 1p off income   
   > tax - and keep paying for the triple lock.   
   > “That’s a far better thing to focus on than just repeatedly hiking the   
   > pension age,” says Sir Steve.   
   > “The risk is we think that the solution to the affordability of the state   
   > pension lies exclusively within the state pension system, and it just   
   > doesn’t.”   
   >   
   > There might be more than one solution to the problem. But the state   
   > pensions time bomb is still ticking down – and hiding from reality is no   
   > longer an option.   
   >   
   > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/29/uk-state-pension-triple-   
   > lock-time-bomb-explode/?li_source=LI&li_medium=for_you   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)