Pensions

Conservatives invented the triple lock and made it their policy in the 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2024 elections. I supported the idea, as the starting basic pension was low. As people were paying in for their pension  a percentage of their earnings it seemed fair they could receive  a pension based on growth in earnings,which was likely most of the time to give the higher uprating.

Labour were forced to match the triple lock pledge and did so in 2024.  The triple lock should therefore be safe until the next election. I expect all the main parties to pledge it again then. I did not read Kemi Badenoch’s remarks as meaning she had any wish or plan to remove it. She spoke about means testing pensioner fuel support,implying she would not restore fir very wealthy people whilst probably restoring it for most of the others that have lost it.

The obvious much delayed change government should make to pensions to tackle the rising bills is to remove the option of a very expensive index linked pension for the civil service for all new entrants and to consider reducing or limiting future contributions and accruals for existing members. I tried to get George Osborne to do this  in 2010. instead billions more liability has been heaped up with hundreds of thousands of new recruits and with fast inflation.

87 Comments

  1. Mark B
    January 18, 2025

    Good morning.

    Unfortunately this subject can only be properly answered with a very long reply, something I wish to avoid. But I will explore something about State Pensions that perhaps will not be covered.

    Like many State provisions they start off with good intentions. They seek to provide some level of relief to those who would otherwise go without. Many feel that this is a good thing as we wish to be charitable to those less fortunate then ourselves. The problem is, when does one draw the line when it comes to said State provision ?

    Very few realise than the State Pension is classed as a ‘benefit’ and, like all benefits can be modified (as recently as 2016) or removed. When State Pensions where first introduced by the Liberal Government headed by David Lloyd-George back 1909 to qualify one had to at least been shown to have worked. There were other minimum thresholds to meet to receive this provision but I will not list them for brevity. Oh and the age at which you could qualify back then was 70. And that is for both men and women.

    There were changes in 1928 with the pension age being reduced to 65. But the biggest changes were to come in 1948 and this is where the problems for today have come from. Whereas before only those who who paid in received a meagre return, now thanks to a Labour government, now everyone whether they worked / paid in or not were eligible for a pension. This and the fact that the age for women was reduced to 60. As I am sure many now agree, why work for something when you know that you are going to get it regardless.

    In summary, we have come almost full circle. The government of 1948 and its largess has broken what was at the time a sensible system. Recent governments have tried to address this with SIRPS and the like. Only for reckless Chancellors to raid those private pension funds and cause more trouble elsewhere and further down the line.

    As I always like to remind people. You can always tell where government has been by the mess it leaves behind.

    Reply The National Insurance fund and the need to pay contributions survived.

    1. Ian wragg
      January 18, 2025

      Two tier Britain will continue with the over generous public centre pension and the meagre state pension.
      The public sector should be removed from the system pension scheme if a certain threshold is reached.
      This would be a start.

      Reply All the time state employees pay into the National Insurance scheme they have a right to the state pension like anyone else. All MPs older than 66 get their state pension as well as their £91,000 salary.

      1. Pominoz
        January 18, 2025

        Reply to Sir John’s reply

        All employees who have paid into the NI scheme should have a right to the same level of state pension as everyone else? Unless they choose to live in Australia, NZ, Canada and certain other places where their pension is frozen.!!!!!!

        This should be remedied without delay. There is no excuse to deny those who contributed fully during their working lifetimes to receive precisely the same as those who choose to live in Europe, the USA, The Philippines etc. The cost to remedy and recompense for the shortfall over the years is not more than half a billion pounds. Take this from the fund allotted to housing illegal immigrants!

        1. Iago
          January 18, 2025

          Turkey is in etc.

        2. a-tracy
          January 21, 2025

          Pominoz, if you think about you, the government collects back in taxes a high % of what it pays out in the UK, from Council taxes (often taking 1/3 of the single persons’ State pension now), to the TV tax, VAT on purchases, indeed income tax on any second pension. If the retiree moves out to another Country they get none of the benefit back it slops out to another Country so the bowl doesn’t get replenished.

          People say elderly people take up more NHS healthcare in the UK and if they move abroad they no longer use up NHS healthcare but don’t many Countries simply bill the UK back for treatments unless the person takes out extra insurance in that Country?

          1. Pominoz
            January 21, 2025

            a-tracy,

            Despite the fact that I have lived in Australia for over 20 years, I am still regarded here as a ‘temporary resident’. I continue to pay all taxes to the UK and am, as a condition of my visa, required to pay for very expensive private health insurance to cover medical costs in Australia. Whilst, having applied for permanent residency, I am, since that application, eligible for Australian Medicare on a reciprocal basis, this does not mean that any benefits I receive under Medicare are charged back to the UK, simply that, as I understand it, there is an acceptance that visitors from Oz to the UK can get NHS treatment, which offsets the cost to Australia of visitors here from the UK.
            Having contributed all my working life, the denial of an increasing pension like, for instance, someone who chooses to live in Spain, looks utterly unjustifiable.

      2. Lifelogic
        January 19, 2025

        Plus their gold plated inflation linked (to the higher inflation measure) MPs pension too if they draw it. Or pushed to the lords with their daily £300+ tax free daily allowance.

        Alas only about 10% of MP deserve much or any remuneration or pension as they so often do more far more than good. Even the excellent ones like JR are so often ignored. If only they had listened we would have saved £billions over his 37ish years.

    2. PeteB
      January 18, 2025

      Mark, In fewer words the UK state pension is a ponzi scheme. No Government invested the money nominally collected in NI. No Government verified that contributions could fund benefits. No Government explained to the population how the structure worked.

      The UK state pension scheme and the civil service scheme are both unaffordable. A visionary Government would gradually wind them down and tell the population to fully fund their own retirement.

      1. Peter Wood
        January 18, 2025

        Yes it is, and here’s why. In 1948, the actuarial life expectancy for a man was about 65 years. The state pension was never intended to cost anything.

        https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09

        Through improvements in living conditions and health services we live a lot longer. The solution is to really take the NI contributions and invest it, a bit like a real pension…

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          January 18, 2025

          With a fund providing a return it does not matter what life expectancy is.

        2. Mike Wilson
          January 18, 2025

          The solution is to really take the NI contributions and invest it, a bit like a real pension…

          If they did that, where would they find the money to spend £250k on foreign trips for the Speaker of the House of Commons?
          There really is no end, or limit, to how they waste our money. There is my mystery or shortage of tax revenues- the whole public sector wastes money every day. And look at the pensions they give themselves. As for MPs over the age of 66 drawing on top of their salary – well, there you have it in a nutshell. Presumably no NI on their salaries either. It’s a gravy train.

        3. Lifelogic
          January 18, 2025

          Indeed but:-
          A. Thanks to the net harm Covid “vaccines”, Covid itself and the NHS lockdowns life expectancy recently has actually declined significantly. Well done our envy of the world NHS and big Pharma.

          B. People can often work for much longer as much work is of far less physically demanding now just driving a car, or tapping on a keyboard. Pension ages have rise by about seven years for women and about two for men and many can work until they are 80 or 90.

    3. graham1946
      January 18, 2025

      ‘When does one draw the line’ – when the pension is a proper amount that people can live on. At the moment it is about one third of average earnings, whereas civil service pensions are about 2 thirds, I believe and index related. Unaffordable? Why, when we can chuck Milliband 21 billion for an experiment that doesn’t and never will work, or make any difference even if it did work, 11 billion to give to overseas farmers, 7 billion in foreign aid to countries many of whom that don’t need it and don’t like us anyway, billions on illegal immigrants, billions on immigrants who don’t actually work when they get here.

      We can afford it alright, just don’t want to – they’d rather make politicians feel good about themselves and virtue signal all over the world, while people here use food banks and freeze in winter. That’s a record to be proud of isn’t it?

      1. Lifelogic
        January 18, 2025

        If you own your house and have no rent of mortgage then the amount you can live on is far less than if you still have rent or mortgage debts. Perhaps as much as double. Same for workers who perhaps still live in the parental home.

        1. graham1946
          January 19, 2025

          And if, like my sister who is still working aged 75 to pay rent to a rapacious landlord? She works just to pay the ever increasing ‘market’ rent. Not everyone is as fortunate as others you know.

      2. MFD
        January 18, 2025

        Well said Graham, that list of throw away money really gets my temper out .

    4. Lynn Atkinson
      January 18, 2025

      Mark as I understand it there is the State Pension (for contributors) and Pension Benefit (for pension aged people who have NOT contributed) both the same amount.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 18, 2025

        like most things in this mad country….pay your way and get clobbered for taxes, contribute zilch and ‘oh dear down on their uppers, must give them everything’

        1. Lifelogic
          January 18, 2025

          So more of the latter and fewer of the former and this a doom loop of positive feedback (in the engineering sense).

      2. hefner
        January 18, 2025

        According to HMRC.gov.uk, the following is how taxes were spent in the 2023-24 tax year:
        Welfare 21.5% , Health 20.2% , State Pensions 11.4% , National Debt Interest 11.1% , Education 10.2%, Defence 5.2% , Public Order and Safety 4.4% , Transport 4.2% , Business and Industry 4.2% , Gouvernment Administration 2.1% , Housing and Utilities (like street lightning) 1.8% , Environment 1.4% , Culture (sports, libraries, museums) 1.2% , Overseas Aid 0.7% , Outstanding payments to the EU 0.6%.

        (These figures include spending by devolved administrations, such as the Scottish and Welsh Governments. They do NOT include indirect taxes, such as VAT and other duties.)

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          January 19, 2025

          So ‘pension benefit’ is under Welfare. Pensions are seperate, as I said.
          Thank you Hefner.

    5. iain gill
      January 18, 2025

      the amount paid out in state pensions should be proportional, up to a limit, to the amount you have paid into the tax and national insurance system over your lifetime. this is needed to put an incentive into the system for people to “do the right thing” and do as well as they can when they can. paying pretty much the same to everyone, including those that have spent most of their working life abroad paying into another countries tax system rather than ours, and those that have taken a lifestyle choice to live on benefits, is not good for anyone.
      additionally those who have transitioned from work visas here to indefinite leave to remain and/or British passports need special treatment to account for their depressing the jobs market for locals, I would just remove the right to state pensions completely from such people.

    6. Christine
      January 18, 2025

      “The National Insurance fund and the need to pay contributions survived.”

      People on benefits pay no contributions yet get a state pension. In fact, a person doesn’t need to have ever worked in the UK, paid taxes or even set foot in the country to receive a state pension. We have an absurd system where we pay child benefit and disability benefits to families who don’t even live here that entitle them to receive NI credits towards a state pension. We also invite people living abroad to buy added years to gain a state pension. Other countries are never so generous. I know people who now get two full state pensions from two countries. They are laughing all the way to the bank. I on the other hand have contributed 46 years of higher rate NI and don’t qualify for a full pension.

  2. agricola
    January 18, 2025

    The problem with NI is that most believe it is a contribution to a national pension and the NHS. It is income and employment tax using a different name to diguise the fact. It should have been ring fenced in a national social investment fund outside the control of government and the Treasury. In the control of the City and free to be invested worldwide, there would be no problem if overlooked with a parliamentary committee with a city background.

    The current system tied in to the performance of the economy is a secknd best compromise if you can think of nothing better than taxing Peter and his employer to pay Paul. Thw prkblem is that the tax pot is subject to every virtue project that politicians can dream up, and their insanitg of back loading the population with dependants.

    The CS should buy their own pensions in the predatory markef as everyone else to top up the state pension.

    The drift of all government towards less wealth creation and greater dependency is a route to disaster that the current bunch of chancers have acceleratwd down.

  3. Lifelogic
    January 18, 2025

    JR says “I tried to get George Osborne to do this in 2010” but this dreadful tax to death Chancellor just put up taxes hugely instead.

    In the summer budget of 2015, Chancellor George Osbourne, announced his intention to limit the ability of landlords to claim tax relief on finance costs including mortgage fees and mortgage interest payments. Thus taxing landlords on “profits” they have not even mad. Healey gave us 98% income tax and the IMF. Osborne gave us over 100% taxes on landlords and indeed on capital gains without indexation.

    He did this using the dishonest claim that owner occupiers did not get relief so Landlords why should landlords? Because if is a cost of business and the bank pays tax on the interest given to them by the landlord. This is double taxation of the interest. Rather like the dishonest claim of Labour now that private school users are getting a “tax subsidy” by not paying VAT when in reality they will pay four times over with VAT.

    Kemi is not going to win back voters with speeches as tedious and empty as the one this week. I have sympathy for her position, how can she every convince anyone to believe the Tories on tax rates, the size of the state, immigration levels… after three manifestoes that they did not even attempt to deliver their promises over 14 years? Still Kemi and Countinho are pushing the mad energy insanity of Net Zero (insanity just a bit more slowly)!

    You need a bit more than that Kemi. You claim to be an engineer albeit one without a physics A level and Countinho even read a half maths degree at Oxford. You both how no excuse not to know that the net zero rip off energy agenda is moronic, economic lunacy and very dangerous.

    1. MBJ
      January 18, 2025

      Oh for goodness sake LL ,this is not about how you view your own position in society in comparisone to others.Try and be a little more objective.I sometimes agree with your comments ,but leave your self centered ego out of it.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 18, 2025

        It always comes across as trumpeting academic results, dismissive of others’.
        Decades ago ‘barrow boys’ or ‘costermongers’ could probably beat him at mental arithmetic..

        1. Lifelogic
          January 18, 2025

          Some academic results! So much of what is being taught and the subjects being taught to people is pointless and often quite wrong. My parents were fairly bright but did not go to university just day release and night schools for financial reasons. Even when I went to university in the late 70s it was only 12% of the population who did so.

      2. Lifelogic
        January 18, 2025

        Not really to do with my personal position as I live overseas and investments are mainly in companies (mainly not property) so it did not affect me very much at all. But for any business/industry if you tax profits they have not even made you slowly kill the whole industry. Hence the lack of UK properties to rent. Where do they expect landlords to get the money from to pay this tax year after year. Some magic money tree? It is already taxed at the bank.

        Rent £20K interest £20K profit negative after costs & yet they want circa £4K in income tax – where are you supposed to find this? People have to sell up or they just get bled dry. They get robbed when they sell too in CGT without indexation and stamp duty for the buyer. A moronic thing for a Conservative Chancellor to do but then Osborne is clearly another Con-socialist.

        It is bad for landlords and indeed also for tenants (and the economy in general) as it kills job mobility and investment in new properties to let so a lack of supply.

    2. Original Richard
      January 18, 2025

      LL : “You [Badenoch & Coutinho] both how no excuse not to know that the net zero rip off energy agenda is moronic, economic lunacy and very dangerous.”

      LL, you have possibly to feel sympathy for these two. Whilst the vast majority of the Conservative Party, including such luminaries as May Johnson, Skidmore, Sharma, Lord Deben, have succumbed to the BBC propaganda that an insignificant rise in a trace gas, CO2, the gas of life, will cause the extinction of the planet, there do exist some, like Lord Lilley and possibly Badenoch and Coutinho, who realise that the unilateral pursuit of this death cult will destroy our economy and military security.

      This must give them a miserable existence as they are torn between saving the planet and saving the country. If only they would watch the Tom Nelson/Tom Shula YT video “The Missing Link” it would put them out of their misery.

      1. Lifelogic
        January 18, 2025

        Indeed and even if the realise net zero is a con-trick (as were the net harm Covid Vaccines) can they actually say so given the make up of tory MPs and the number of voters who have been conned by the BBC etc.

        1. Original Richard
          January 19, 2025

          Probably not and which is why the Conservative Party s a broken brand.

  4. formula57
    January 18, 2025

    ” I tried to get George Osborne to do this in 2010″ – that would be the same Osborne who knew to repair the roof before the rains came, rather when the sun shone, but never did. He is another of the political class who let us all down badly.

    Otherwise, do not forget nor overlook Dorothy Wainwright’s idea of generous pensions or honours but not both for the civil service.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 18, 2025

      Indeed but when did we last have a good Chancellor who did the right thing and actually cut the size of government. Nigel Lawson I suppose but even he mad huge errors the double MIRAS boom and he shadowed the DM with a view to going into the ERM and EURO.

      Still he was sound on climate alarmism.

  5. Sakara Gold
    January 18, 2025

    Nobody gets index linked final salary pensions anymore – except the civil service. I heartily agree with Sir John’s views on ending this perk for new entrants. And existing public servants should have to sacrifice salary into their individual pensions on a gradual increase scheme.

    I have always supported the pensions triple-lock. Pensioners have paid into the system all their working lives – people need 35 years of NI contributions to get the full state pension. Many folk paid additional contributions into the SERPS scheme to gain additional pension. Regardless of how difficult the nations finances are, making retrospective changes to the state pension (such as means testing it) would be grossly unfair.

    1. graham1946
      January 18, 2025

      I needed 44 years to qualify for my pension and receive a lower pension than the later people who only required 35 years. What genius thought that would work?

    2. IanT
      January 18, 2025

      “Nobody gets index linked final salary pensions anymore – except the civil service”

      I guess that depends on who you describe as a “Cilvil Servant” SG – as I believe a good chunk of my Council Tax goes towards Council pensions that are both final salary & index linked – including I assume the Firemen and Police. I know these ‘pensioners’ do contribute towards their pensions but they are still based on final (or average) salary and are indexed linked – and underwritten by the ratepayer and/or Government.

      I’m sure this in part explains why my rates are so high but deliver so little. Well this and the fact we are also clearly funding a very large Social Services business if I beleive everything that the Council sends me in their weekly emails.

      1. hefner
        January 18, 2025

        which.co.uk 17/10/2024 ‘What is the Local Government pension scheme?‘

        1. IanT
          January 18, 2025

          Thank you Hefner – very informative.
          So not “final” salary these days but “average” salary with Employee contributions between 5.5% and 12.5% pa dependant on salary. However it seems that the Employer is also typically contributing two thirds of the scheme’s costs, with generous spouse/partner ‘pension’ provision, lump sum withdrawals, “cost of living” indexing and (as far as I can see) no ceiling to the pot you can acquire. So that is quite a benefit being accrued!
          Not many private sector companies offer pensions like that any more…if any.

    3. MWB
      January 18, 2025

      SG – yes, you are correct with all the points you make.
      To all those who say that the UK state pension should be mean tested as in Australia, I say that the state pension scheme in UK is contributory, unlike the Australian scheme where no contributions are paid, as I understand it anyway.

    4. Lifelogic
      January 18, 2025

      Almost no one. MPs on of the select few who get pensions linked to the higher RPI rate needless to say! Plus perhaps the Lords tax free attendance allowance of £342 a day if they are lucky to be elevated. (usually this is the rather bad ones like Theresa Nat Zero May look at the rather dire list of generally rather dim lefties).

  6. Bloke
    January 18, 2025

    People who have paid into pensions should receive a normal return on what they contributed. Many who have paid in feel cheated anyway, because Govt pays for many others who didn’t.

    Some of the others spent decades doing nothing. Some spent nearly all they had on wine, women and song, and wasted the rest. Some spent on drugs and stole. Some gambled, incurring debts over £100k. Some never lived in the UK, or paid anything in until they entered a short time before retiring. Some are here illegally. Govt still pays, ie: us.

    Means testing is wasteful for claimants and handlers in both time and money. The tax system sorts out who gains what in balance. Paying state pensions to multi-millionaires is easier than trying to separate them as a non-eligible group, because tax thresholds cut through that.

    Triple locks for pensions are daft, and means testing parts of it is even dafter.
    Governments have to budget: according to what is affordable and right.
    A good government does good things naturally, without needing some triple lock to force them.
    Those who are worthy gain support.

    1. graham1946
      January 18, 2025

      The triple lock is not daft while pensions in the UK are so paltry and a giant scam. Had we been allowed to invest the tax we paid for the pensions, the average pension would now be 20 grand according to one actuary I know.

      1. Bloke
        January 19, 2025

        Having a triple lock to raise an amount paid, then taking it back by the fiscal drag of a fixed low tax liability threshold is the daft part. 20 grand would make a better tax threshold.
        Maybe it’s kind of the Govt to keep the 1972 £10 Xmas Bonus for old folk. That would be worth some £100-£300 today.
        Perfection is a moving target needing maintenance.

  7. Donna
    January 18, 2025

    Ms Badenoch appears to have a tendency to open her mouth and say something (inc.Twitter) without considering how others may interpret it, or what the consequences might be. The only memorable thing from her speech appears to be a threat to the State Pension. Genius – well done that woman!

    It really doesn’t correlate with her often stated claim to “be an engineer who takes the time to really analyse a problem before setting out how to fix it.” She’s not going to fix the Not-a-Conservative-Party’s electoral problem by putting the wind up 12 million-or-so pensioners, plus those further millions expecting to be in receipt of one in the next few years.

    If she has anything to say on the subject of pensions it should be a pledge to end the Two-Tier Pension system operating in this country between those working in the private sector and those in the cosseted Public Sector (inc MPs) whose overly generous pensions are paid by the taxpayer: it’s THEIR pensions which are quite obviously inappropriate are unaffordable.

    Of course, the quickest way to reduce the future Public Sector pension liability is to reduce the number who are expecting to benefit from one.

    Reply. Yes the civil service needs to return to 2016 staffing levels as soon as possible.Saving of 30%

    1. graham1946
      January 18, 2025

      The conservatives have done it again – picked a another dud after a stupidly long voting processes.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 18, 2025

        but the barrel to dip into is pretty small.

    2. Donna
      January 18, 2025

      Reply to reply.

      It’s not just the Civil Service, look at the Local Authority pension liabilities. The DT spells it out. How did we get to a situation whereby County and Local Councillors are being gifted luxurious retirements paid for by clobbering “hardworking families and little old ladies?”

      “7,609 ex-council workers enjoy a pension of more than £50,000 a year. Of those, 203 receive more than £100,000 – almost three times the UK’s national average wage.
      The total pensions of just 7,800 people cost more than £400m a year.
      Nearly two million pensions are already in payment, with another 4.5 million on the way.
      26 out of 87 schemes did not have enough money to meet their pension promises when they were last valued.
      Experts warned taxpayers will “revolt” if councils do not address the bloated schemes.”

      Councils can’t be trusted to “address the bloated schemes.” The Government needs to legislate to restrict the growth in Public Sector pay to “senior officials” and their unaffordable pensions.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/state-pensions/revealed-the-gold-plated-pensions-paid-by-britain-councils/

      Reply Councillors do not get these pensions.They are for officers. They are backed by investment funds from members and employers contributions, unlike the civil service pension.

  8. Jazz
    January 18, 2025

    I read about “The Chicago Boys” Chileans who went to Chicago University studying economics (I hope I remembered that correctly).
    After one of the Chilean regimes they were asked to advise on pensions.
    They said that everybody who could contribute would have their contributions ring fenced to themselves and would be allowed to invest their monies into any four state sponsored funds.
    Those unable/ do not contribute would be entitled to a minimum state pension.
    It has been a huge success. So much so that I expect the politicians are trying to get their hands on all those hard earned monies for their own pet projects.
    I think we should look at this system for our pension system.

    Reply I got the government to allow self invested pension pots or SIpP s so people can save for their retirement and benefit from good investment on top of state pension. It works well.

    1. Mickey Taking
      January 18, 2025

      It did work well, however, the thieving Chancellor know puts my SIPP money into IHT range.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 18, 2025

        now not know

    2. Lynn Atkinson
      January 18, 2025

      Yes it does. The real problem is that so many get Pension Benefit, having contributed nothing. The more illegal immigrants – the greater the problem. But that is a benefits problem not a ‘pension’ problem.

    3. Jazz
      January 18, 2025

      I did not know this Sir J, thank you. I benefit from a SIPP

  9. Michael Staples
    January 18, 2025

    The Triple Lock should not become a “human right”. It is a limited means of increasing pensioner income gradually. However the fall back of 2.5% should eventually be removed and the increased tied to average wages rather than inflation to maintain parity with working people.
    As for the winter fuel payment, this a not a conservative benefit and should be forgotten about. What is conservative is to encourage full competition between all forms of energy producers and the bring down the price of domestic energy to pensioners, by getting rid of Net Zero and all its complicated decarbonisation subsidies and charges, allowing drilling and fracking for gas and oil and expanding our nuclear capacity.
    This whole Net Zero project, with no prospect of affecting the climate one iota, is destroying our industry and impoverishing us all. Complete madness.

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      January 18, 2025

      But Benefits are linked with inflation, or whatever else is the highest increase. Why should pensioners be different?

      1. Michael Staples
        January 18, 2025

        Yours is a fair argument but if the workers are not getting as much it seems fairer to me that the pensioners’ standard of living should match that of those in employment, who under our system are effectively paying for pensions out of their wages.

        1. Michael Staples
          January 18, 2025

          Conversely, if workers wages are rising faster than inflation, pensioners would then benefit.

        2. Lynn Atkinson
          January 19, 2025

          I think the critical thing for workers is indexation is gerrymandered. It’s not the increase in what they earn that matters as much as an increase in how much they keep – at least in line with inflation.
          I think Christopher Gill suggested that indexation for the wealth creators should be linked to benefits increases.
          I agree.

  10. Bryan Harris
    January 18, 2025

    Limiting pensioners to subsistence levels of living shows more than the meanness of politicians, given they are so happy to give our money away for any foreign cause. Of course pensions should be linked to the inflation levels. They should also be higher.
    We should be a rich country able to provide those who have created that wealth a good retirement. One day soon I hope, someone will calculate the cost of the waste by politicians over the last 2 decades, money given away for no good reason or indeed wasted through inflation created by government policies or simply thrown down some black hole, or even lost through government inefficiency.

    Starmer has just given Ukraine another £3B, with the promise of the same every year for 100 years. Still he persists in squeezing and punishing taxpayers. That would have helped a lot of pensioners.

    Looking at labour’s tax policies it is clear to see that pensioners and the middle classes are being targeted, so we cannot expect to see pensions rise to support a reasonable standard of living for pensioners any time soon. Still as long as the illegal immigrants are comfortable politicians will keep on telling themselves what a wonderful job they are doing!

  11. Old Albion
    January 18, 2025

    If the pension triple lock survives Starmer and this foul government, I’ll eat my hat ……………..

  12. Robert Mcdonald
    January 18, 2025

    The public sector pension scheme should no longer be a final salary scheme. It should be based on career earnings and contributions. The public sector scam for the “preferred” ones is to promote them beyond their ability to increase their final salary and hence their pensions.

  13. Robert Mcdonald
    January 18, 2025

    The public sector pension scheme should no longer be a final salary scheme. It should be based on career earnings and contributions. The public sector scam for the “preferred” ones is to promote them beyond their ability in their final year to increase their final salary and hence their pensions.

  14. Dave Andrews
    January 18, 2025

    I approach this subject from the perspective “What is the next generation getting in return for the mountain of National Debt they inherit and have to maintain?”
    Those who argue they have paid for their state pension with contributions should remember those payments were all spent in the year they were collected with nothing put by for their future needs.
    How about we have a system where the increase of Debt rung up by a government are charged to those who voted for them? That would sharpen up voting intentions.
    As to the State Pension, make plans to wind it down with reduced National Insurance as well eventually when the National Debt has been paid down. Let people put in to their own occupational schemes and just provide for the genuinely unfortunate.

  15. William Long
    January 18, 2025

    Having their remarks taken out of context must be a great frustration for politicians, but it should make them very careful what they say. GB News had clearly got the wrong impression.
    While writing, l would like to say l very much hope Mrs Badenoch and Mr Stride have both read Helena Morrissey’s article in the Money section of today’s Daily Telegraph, but l fear l lack confidence that its proposals will appeal to them

  16. Paul Freedman
    January 18, 2025

    Just regarding the state pension, I gather our NIC contributions are paid to the ‘National Insurance Fund’ which only invests in overnight / short-term government loans. I am not sure why the NIF does not operate like a regular pension fund though as it is essentially a state pension fund? Operating like a regular pension fund would mean investing in riskier assets than just overnight government debt etc – thus earning far better returns. Like any regular pension fund the risk would be managed (ie the optimal risk taken) and if ever there was a shortfall it is only at that point the taxpayer is tapped for a top up. Surely if this were effected it would save the NIC payers GBP billions?

  17. Ian B
    January 18, 2025

    Sir John
    My understanding rightly or wrongly is National Insurance was sold to the Nation as just that a compulsory Insurance for health, pensions and then additionally unemployment benefits – social security.
    Unfortunately, UK Governments have neglected the ambition. Until recently Individuals paid 12% of income and the employers around 14%. In pension pot terms if 4% of an individual and 4% of an employer’s contribution (i.e. 8% in total) was invested over time that would have just provided a reasonable base pension for all. More importantly it would have been taken out of the Political arena. … And National Insurance would start to be just that. The discussions of the Country can’t afford would not arise.
    The means testing suggestion forget pensions already are in the natural flow, they are taxable in the same way everyone else’s income is and with the frozen allowances brought in by Hunt/Sunak means more get trapped into paying each year.
    For perspective the year 24/25 with 30 years contribution the state pension is £169.50 per week If you didn’t contribute you get £218,15 per week.

    1. Ian B
      January 18, 2025

      The other weird one is the so-called WASPI women. Although women campaigned and got equal right to men which seemed reasonable in a modern world. The Argument goes that some women thought they should have received a personal letter explain the changes although it was widely reported and know.
      My understanding is the pension age changed from 65 to 67 yet no personal letters went out to the population – does it mean those affected need compensation?
      The trap was another Labour Party lie to get elected – “of course you should get extra money from the taxpayer”. Then as it turns out these women are already receiving more because of the equality to men thing yet they want even more taxpayer giveaways

  18. majorfrustration
    January 18, 2025

    Despite the never ending talk about public sector pensions the likelihood of sorting this growing problem out
    is on a par with reorganising the NHS. Possibly a start could be made with MPs pensions – set an example.

    Reply MP pensions are paid from a contributory pension fund with assets like private sector schemes.

  19. Lynn Atkinson
    January 18, 2025

    You would think that the socialists would go straight for the ‘richest pensioners’ – I.e. the index linked. They have snookered themselves as their people are now the richest, so they go for the poor. The poorest pensions in Europe. But £9.6 billion pledged by Starmer for Ukraine. What a disgrace.
    Some moral high ground.

  20. Roy Grainger
    January 18, 2025

    I’m not in favour of the triple lock. Just increase pensions in line with inflation and keep them out of the tax bracket. Increasing them by 2.5% when inflation is lower than this is unjustified and linking them to average wages has no logic at all – what does it matter that people in work are relatively better off than pensioners when the economy improves ? Those who want a bigger pension can contribute to workplace pension or other private schemes.

    Jeremy Hunt’s plan to eliminate (in some way) employee NI contributions shows he too eventually wanted to means test pensions by first removing the idea that NI payments generated an “entitlement” to a state pension.

    Agree that all public sector final salary schemes should be immediately closed to new members – amazing that hasn’t already been done. The act of Parliament that specifically names Keir Starmer and gives him tax breaks on his pension not available to the general public should also be immediately repealed.

    1. graham1946
      January 19, 2025

      Then pensions would never increase to what level they should be at and are already the lowest in the western world. Do you live on £180 per week?

  21. Chris S
    January 18, 2025

    We all agree that the public sector defined benefit pension schemes should be wound up, but of equal concern, is national pay grades. There is London weighting, but otherwise public sector employees earn the same wherever they live. This is very expensive and distorts the employment market. A head teacher in rural Wales would be just about the highest earner in the village, together with the GP.

    On a similar point, rural villages are becoming two tier places to live : there are retired public servants and everyone else. In the case of local authority workers, the retired and working people from the private sector are now paying more than 25% of their council tax to maintain public sector retirees in a a style they can never aspire too.

    A real them and us situation which is going to get much worse unless all public sector pensions are reformed.

    1. hefner
      January 18, 2025

      thepfs.org 22/03/2022 ‘All change for Public Sector Pension schemes’.

  22. NigL
    January 18, 2025

    Rich as Croesus entitled members of the Notting Hill set, Cameron and Osbourne as far away from ‘ordinary; voters as can be allowing Austerity/Cuts to be the narrative so neither wanted to or had the courage to take on public sector unions. The awful Theresa May continued by labelling the Tories, the nasty party, so again allowing others to control the narrative and so it continues.

    Kick the can down the road, politicians favourite tactic so the problem gets worse but others have to deal with.

    One of the reasons (almost all) politicians are ‘detested’ is that their default is to tax because it’s easier/ they lack courage rather than to save money through efficiency etc.

    So the voter gets less money overall, worse services and the people responsible swan around, financially secure with bullet proof jobs and pensions.

    It stinks.

  23. Stred
    January 18, 2025

    The difference between state and private employment pensions is staggering. My OH has worked in higher education and has been relatively poorly paid compared to colleagues who are clinicians. Nevertheless, since promotion to senior academic and heading her department, her pay has increased by about 6k to £60k. If she retires in 2 years time, she will receive a 90k lump sum and 30k+ pension.
    I retired and have an OAP of £10, 800 now after 12 years of increases. My private pension after Gordon’s tax and changing employers and providers, the whole office having been churned once, is £980. That’s per year, not month. Fortunately, I invested
    in BTL and have had a total retirement income of £27k, which is enough to pay taxes and live frugally. I have no debt or family to support. Unfortunately, the government has decided to ruin BTL and I will have much less income for my last years, living of savings.

    But many of us in private employment have not been so lucky and are dependent on one of the lowest old age pensions in Europe.

    We watched a TV programme last week about luxury old folks homes with pensioners paying 50k pa plus for the accommodation. Who are these people? I suspect that they are senior pen pushers in local government, police and civil service.
    I know some retired police who take 6 foreign holidays every year. They reckon that if they saved the money it would go in IHT.
    Couldn’t these enormous pensions be taxed and put towards impoverished private pensioners?

    Reply Large pensions are taxed at the higher rates. Theres nothing wrong with someone on a good income saving to have a good pension.

  24. Keith from Leeds
    January 18, 2025

    Let us not forget the damage Gordon Brown did in his first budget to final salary pensions in the private sector.
    He is the man who stole your pension unless you are a public sector employee. It is a disgrace that Civil Servants still get pensions linked to their final salary. Now, it is suggested that this Labour government will also be having a go at private-sector pensions.
    The triple lock should stay, but remember, the last Conservative government broke it a couple of years ago. No government should mess about with pensions; everyone should be encouraged to save for themselves, and all new public sector employees should have to have money purchase pensions. Will we ever get a government that actually balances the budget? If not, the UK will go bankrupt, slowly at first, then quickly, in fact, overnight.
    It may not be that far away! Public sector pensions will be one of the causes!

  25. Ukret123
    January 18, 2025

    Whilst SIPP pensions are undoubtedly a great idea to have control over your own hard earned money compared with what went before, it is especially galling for drawdown to be taxed again because of stealthy fiscal drag just above the state pension.
    No encouragement to survive without the penny pinching socialist government fleecing us instead.

  26. Denis Cooper
    January 18, 2025

    Just a note that tomorrow it will be sixteen years since Alistair Darling set up the Asset Purchase Facility:

    https://ypfsresourcelibrary.blob.core.windows.net/fcic/YPFS/Darling_2009.01.19_House-of-Commons.pdf

    The UK economy has still not fully recovered from the global financial crisis, trend growth rate is halved:

    https://globalbritain.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Ewen-Stewart-Chart-1-UK-GDP-per-capita.jpg

  27. glen cullen
    January 18, 2025

    183 criminals arrived in the UK yesterday; from the safe country of France …

    1. Original Richard
      January 18, 2025

      GC :

      They simply don’t care.

  28. Dave Andrews
    January 18, 2025

    Dear John,
    The Guardian published an article talking about the Treasury adviser John Van Reenen and his ideas regarding achieving growth.
    Would you do an appraisal of his ideas? The article indicates his advice lies under the government’s economic plan, which to me seems barmy.

    Reply Have not seen that. I have provided analysis of why the government’s so called growth policy will not work.

    1. Mickey Taking
      January 19, 2025

      Sir John has better ways to spend his valuable time than reading the dreaming claptrap usually printed in that newspaper.

  29. beresford
    January 18, 2025

    The country is in financial straits and has a huge National Debt. However before squeezing its citizens it should cut profligate spending:
    – Non-productive DEI ‘jobs’ which seem to carry higher salaries than productive roles.
    – The overmanned House of Commons, whose reform has been kicked into the long grass.
    – The bloated House of Lords, swollen further by each PM with a fresh influx of cronies and party donors.
    – The foreign aid budget, maintained so that our leaders can strut on the world stage.
    – Foreign proxy wars which drain our resources, raise energy prices, and may make us a legitimate target for attack.
    – Hair-shirt adherence to Nut Zero while the rest of the world laughs at us and opens new coal mines.
    – Excessive spending on illegal immigrants. For example, why not change the law so that people who shouldn’t be here can’t access the legal system?

  30. Narrow Shoulders
    January 18, 2025

    The 2.5% is wrong. Inflation yes, Average earnings rise yes, but if those are both less than 2.5% then pensioners get what everyone else get.

  31. Michael Pitt
    January 19, 2025

    If you accept that the triple lock is not affordable in the medium term,let alone the long term,the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance provides the opportunity to abolish it.Increase the state pension by the amount of the lost allowance plus a bit more and thereafter limit increases to CPI.At the same time increase the income tax personal allowance to the amount of the new SRP plus £1000 and legislate for future increases to be linked to CPI .

  32. Linda Brown
    January 20, 2025

    I do not understand governments in this country on pensions and other benefits. It would be so easy to vet people on tax takes from wages. Why the fuel allowance was cancelled for all I cannot get to grips with because anyone earning under £20,000 can not make a decent living for themselves. Shows how out of touch politicians are once they gain power. Some of them must have come from hard up backgrounds so why do they change their views once elected? A mystery to me.

  33. Rodney Needs
    January 20, 2025

    I would like to see a rise on a yearly basis. But every second year take the lump sum and divide equally to all this will give a boast to lower pension holders. Do not support means testing administration will cost money. Those who pay tax will give a part back through the system. I would have made winter fuel Taxable. We need to keep pressure on the pensioners to claim there top up . The increase in numbers has been a positive from winter fuel debacle

Comments are closed.