Will this government honour the triple lock as promesed ?

will goverment honour the triple lock pension

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 20.9%
  • no course not lying gits .

    Votes: 35 81.4%

  • Total voters
    43

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Kitchen of course unless you want your clothing descending out of the bedroom window…
Fine, you are now carless and out of a job so can't afford the kitchen you promised.

Now I realise that to a woman that is probably irrelevant, but there you go.
 
Think yourself lucky




More age increases are on the way.

Both the IMF & OECD called for it last year and the BoE has waded in this year.

A very convenient way to help cook the books but incredibly short sighted and quite anti social.

The population of the UK is living longer. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that we might be living longer but we aren’t necessarily physically capable of working longer.

Many people will always have been able to work easily until they were over their seventies. They’re usually nicknamed Peter Pan or Wendy. Retirement at 65 would have often been seen as a bit of a hurdle to them because they wanted to carry on working.

The problem is though that the majority of people are more than happy to retire at the age of 65 or 66 as it is at the moment. Underlying creeping health problems often not apparent to a casual bystander but an impediment to an individuals health nevertheless is quite prevalent among many people as they reach their sixties. Being forced to carry on working can be both an actually real pain and an obstacle to having the time to get better or at least stabilise the problem.

There is also the question of quality of life. If the plan is to force people to work until they die negating the need for a pension, they should just come out and say so. Rather than all this “oh, you’re all living longer and we haven’t got the money to pay for it nonsense!”

Despite the government and it’s supporters labelling it as such, your old age pension isn’t a benefit. They’ve had the money. If you’ve worked all your life, retirement is something that you’ve already paid for. Making people work for longer is a government con!

Just to add for those who might argue the money isn’t there. In 2019, the government paid out 93 billion pounds in “corporate welfare.” Corporate welfare is things like tax breaks, grants and subsidies. That equates to £3500 per household. Roughly, £70 per week.

There is also the matter of tax avoidance schemes. The government harbours 13 of the largest tax avoidance schemes in the world where the rich make a daily fortune not paying tax on their vast fortunes.

So let’s not kid ourselves that the pensioners can give up money that they’ve paid up front for their pensions and that will solve our problems eh!!
 
Last edited:
Women demanded equality, remember?
And they have a greater life expectancy. Given that they received 8 years notice of the change, I cannot understand how anyone can say they didn't see it coming. Sure, it screwed up a few mid-term assumptions, but it was based on an unfair advantage to start with.
 
And they have a greater life expectancy. Given that they received 8 years notice of the change, I cannot understand how anyone can say they didn't see it coming. Sure, it screwed up a few mid-term assumptions, but it was based on an unfair advantage to start with.
The change to the pensions act was passed by act of parliament in 1995. My wife has been caught, 66 last week so finally entitled, awaiting payments now instead of age 60. She says she's always known so it's puzzling as to how the WASPI women etc. claim that they never ever knew until it was too late.
 
Women demanded equality, remember?

Well they could have brought men down to 60 or they could have both met roughly half way at say, 63 but that wouldn’t have achieved the aim of making everybody work more and costing less of their own money that they had paid into the pot for their retirement.

My wife for example worked her whole life under the premise that she would retire at 60 years of age only to almost get there and be told that she now has to work until she’s 67!

Until that little surprise was pulled out of the bag, she would have retired the month before me if I had retired at 65 years of age.

We worked our whole lives thinking we would more or less retire together and then enjoy our retirement together only to find our retirement plans crushed by a bunch of old Etonians and suchlike who only worry about where their next home decorating sponsor is coming from!

She’s thoroughly pissed off about it. I am as well and I daresay, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the same or a very similar situation.
 
Well they could have brought men down to 60 or they could have both met roughly half way at say, 63 but that wouldn’t have achieved the aim of making everybody work more and costing less of their own money that they had paid into the pot for their retirement.

My wife for example worked her whole life under the premise that she would retire at 60 years of age only to almost get there and be told that she now has to work until she’s 67!

Until that little surprise was pulled out of the bag, she would have retired the month before me if I had retired at 65 years of age.

We worked our whole lives thinking we would more or less retire together and then enjoy our retirement together only to find our retirement plans crushed by a bunch of old Etonians and suchlike who only worry about where their next home decorating sponsor is coming from!

She’s thoroughly pissed off about it. I am as well and I daresay, there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in the same or a very similar situation.
When was your wife 60? Again...given that there was at least 15 years between flash and bang, how did she not find out until just before she expected to retire? Are you just exaggerating to help along your monotone and persistent 'evil Tories' narrative?

I just don't buy it I'm afraid.

ETA: Tony and Gordon were so incensed by this evil affront to our oppressed socialist sisters, that they didn't bother amending the legislation for the thirteen years they were in power, between the act being passed in 1995 and the first stage being implemented in 2010.
 
Last edited:
Well they could have brought men down to 60 or they could have both met roughly half way at say, 63 but that wouldn’t have achieved the aim of making everybody work more and costing less of their own money that they had paid into the pot for their retirement.
Which pot? There is no pot, it's a Ponzi scheme.
 
Which pot? There is no pot, it's a Ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme is where the money ultimately runs out. All the NI scheme does is today’s workers pay for today’s retiree’s just like today’s retiree’s did when they were yesterday’s workers paying for yesterday’s retiree’s.

Unless you’re suggesting that we’re going to run out of workers, the process will just continue as it has for many years.

The government could stop spending all the money and start saving it to build up a fund but for some reason, they like to run it as it stands.

So it’s not a ponzi scheme. Unless an apocalypse happens and we run out of workers but in those circumstances, we probably won’t be worrying about pensions eh?

Calling it a ponzi scheme is just an excuse to criticise it!
 
Last edited:
A ponzi scheme is where the money ultimately runs out. All the NI scheme does is today’s workers pay for today’s retiree’s just like today’s retiree’s did when they were yesterday’s workesr paying for yesterday’s retiree’s.

Unless you’re suggesting that we’re going to run out of workers, the process will just continue as it has for many years.
We have more and more retired people claiming state pension because people are living longer. We have less workers because population growth in the UK has decreased. Yes we're certainly going to have less money coming in whilst the outgoings will just continue to increase.
 
We have more and more retired people claiming state pension because people are living longer. We have less workers because population growth in the UK has decreased. Yes we're certainly going to have less money coming in whilst the outgoings will just continue to increase.

It’s nonsense to suggest we’re going skint and the money isn’t there.

Read my post at #63 if you think we can’t afford it!
 
Last edited:
We have more and more retired people claiming state pension because people are living longer. We have less workers because population growth in the UK has decreased. Yes we're certainly going to have less money coming in whilst the outgoings will just continue to increase.

Indeed. £75 Million for a new Holocaust memorial. £250 Million for a new Royal Yacht. £37 Billion for the Test and Trace scheme...

The government tells the tax-payers that sacrifices have to be made, while spunking money up the wall like a drunken sailor who's managed to spend his shore leave in Las Vegas.
 

endure

GCM
Indeed. £75 Million for a new Holocaust memorial. £250 Million for a new Royal Yacht. £37 Billion for the Test and Trace scheme...
I don't understand this. How can you spend so much money on it? What did the money buy?
 
What about all the people that die before they reach pension age . They have paid in and they get nothing out .
Ok people are living longer but a lot of people do not
 
What about all the people that die before they reach pension age . They have paid in and they get nothing out .
Ok people are living longer but a lot of people do not
The unfortunate thing about many nations' pension systems, is that they are run in a way that would attract a criminal prosecution if a private body tried the same thing. 'Contributions' as they are laughingly called, almost never provide a linkage between amount paid in and amount paid out. The contributions themselves are rarely put into a sovereign fund for future pension provision, instead they are spunked away on politicians' pet vanity projects, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces later.

You think the UK state pension scheme is bad, you should see the state of the German one. All workers have to pay 'Rentenversicherung' (Pension Insurance) from their wages, for their entire working lives. The implication is that this goes into your pot and is invested wisely for you by a benevolent state, to provide a comfortable existence in your old age. Well, I am sure you won't be surprised, that is not what happens, The fund pays you a pension based on the number of years you have worked. If you don't have enough years, then you don't qualify for a pension. This amount changes at the whim of government cost of living calculations and bears no resemblance to how much you paid in, only the length of time over which you did it. Some people who have never contributed, such as immigrants, can be granted full pensions on the basis that they would have contributed had they been living in Germany (W.Germany) at the time. Obviously this applies to all former E. Germans, including former state employees, who get pensions commensurate with what they would have received if they had lived in the West. Consequently, those who have contributed are basically funding every other bugger and getting far short of a fair shake themselves. Luckily, many saw this coming years ago and have other schemes so are not chronically poor. German private pension schemes are on a par with UK annuities and are very bad compared to UK drawdown schemes.

Many are very poor. We often see old people searching rubbish bins for empty bottles to return for the deposit. Others deliver newspapers and recently when we were throwing away some old clothes, we came across an old woman who, despite having worked 27 years, has no pension and recycles clothes for an income.

Some public servants are trapped. They cannot leave their jobs because their pension will go down the tubes if they leave. The transfer-out rate is employee's contributions only and all the employer's share is removed/retained by the state when they leave.

On the other hand, we know two former mid-ranking Bundespost civil servants (One Telekom and one Post) who retired in their fifties on 2/3 and 3/4 wages in perpetuity as they were surplus to requirements. They both now have other jobs and are very comfortable. The Telekom guy was told that he had a bad back and should take medical retirement. There was nothing wrong with his back, but why should he fight it?

//break//
 
We have more and more retired people claiming state pension because people are living longer. We have less workers because population growth in the UK has decreased. Yes we're certainly going to have less money coming in whilst the outgoings will just continue to increase.

You’re saying the UK population has decreased?

Can’t see that myself!

Got a source?
 
You’re saying the UK population has decreased?

Can’t see that myself!

Got a source?
Native/indigenous population has decreased, immigrant/gimmegrant population massively increased.
 
Native/indigenous population has decreased, immigrant/gimmegrant population massively increased.

So overall, the population has increased which means more people, not less, will be paying in NI contributions.
 

Latest Threads

Top