Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
What about all the other means tested add one pensioners get though ?
If you are on the full pension - you don't qualify for anything else. To get pension credit you need to either not receive the full state pension (be born after 1951 and have less than 35 years of stamp) or be on the old basic state pension (i.e. born before 1951 or 1953 if female).
It should be remembered that you can receive national insurance credits for pension eligibility purposes if not working.
National Insurance (NI) credits fill gaps in your record when you are not paying contributions, protecting your State Pension entitlement. You receive them for periods of illness, unemployment, approved training, or caring duties. These credits ensure you maintain a qualifying year toward the full state pension.
Key Reasons You Receive National Insurance Credits
Illness or Disability: Credits are awarded if you receive Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) or Incapacity Benefit.
Unemployment: Credits are awarded while you are registered for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or looking for work.
Caring Responsibilities: You can receive credits if you receive Carer's Allowance, or Child Benefit for a child under 12.
Parenting/Family: Credits are awarded to parents or kinship carers of children under 12.
Approved Training: Attending approved training courses can earn you credits.
Jury Service: You are eligible for credits while serving on a jury.
Armed Forces: Partners of armed forces members who accompany them on overseas postings.
Self-Employment: If your profits are low (between £7,105 and £12,570), you may receive credits to protect your pension, according to TaxAid.
Apart from being a university student it seems hard NOT to get the national insurance credit.
I've got gaps in 3 years, 7 years to contribute before 2049.
Only an issue if you have gaps exceeding 15 years - which as you say as long as you're on top of stuff (Like potentially claiming £0.00 at times if you have savings and are out of work) everyone should make.
Sir Keir Starmer ***will*** impose a three-line whip on Labour MPs to oppose the motion referring him to the privileges committee for misleading the Commons, as we first reported at the weekend
The Commons has to be free to regulate itself without the interference of party politics. It was very wrong of Boris Johnson to impose a whip in similar circumstances and it is very bad to see that precedent now repeated.
It is very important that Labour MPs defy this whip and vote to refer Starmer to the privileges committee, even if they do not think Starmer has a case to answer for misleading the Commons. Only a mass rebellion will prevent it from becoming the norm that such votes are whipped.
A lot of people thought Starmer would be great after Corbyn and now look. I suspect the same would happen to Burnham or any other replacement.
Burnham is a good communicator so nicely ticks the box of being good at the incumbent PMs biggest weakness. If given the reins now he will inevitably disappoint, as the challenge of being PM is too high at the moment as the public don't take enough account of the impact of the wars in Ukraine and Iran on our political economy. If and when they get resolved then about a year after that is a good time to become PM, it would still be tough but they would stand some chance.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
Well, it is - you probably need £30k+ coming in a year for a comfortable retirement- but that's not the point.
The point is it's unaffordable and should be considered a basic minimum and supplemented by workplace or personal pensions.
Also, the main problem for pensioner poverty in the future will be the increasing number of poorer pensioners still reliant on renting in the expensive private sector. The most effective thing a government can do to reduce future pensioner poverty is to build more houses (including social housing) so that housing costs come down.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Quote Politics UK @PolitlcsUK · 2h 🚨 NEW: Rachel Reeves is considering banning landlords from raising rent on private homes for a year due to the Iran War
Will interest rate rises be banned to protect home buyers as well?
I think that question is for Trump's new Fed chair who is being tested for nomination by congress at the moment.
Sunday Times business says he thinks only the left hand side of inflation figure counts (so 2% rather than 2.3%) and his gut is that real inflation is 2.3% not whatever this week's figure is. 2% is the figure at which is target - so time to slash interest rates. And Don Locco wants this guy nominated.
Arrange your financial affairs as you see fit.
Trump is desperate for that slash, he even dropped the criminal case against the outgoing Chair once it became clear he wouldn't be going anywhere so long as the case was pursued, due to a Senator holding things up.
Still, he can probably try again once he gets his guy confirmed.
American has fallen.
The lights are going out.
Will we see it again in our lifetimes?
Indeed so.
Here’s House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for “Maximum warfare, all of the time” against his political opponents, and then doubling down yesterday after the events of the weekend.
That’s some pathetic snowflake whataboutery from Trump supporters.
As noted in the X comments, the Jeffries comment relates specifically to the redistricting battle, as made very clear by the clip. No case to answer.
Kimmel is out of order here, though.
It’s a poor taste joke. I feel for Melania, she’s been thrust into the public eye through no fault of her own and has to put up with a bad joke being made about her. I can only hope that the $28 million she earned from the film “Melania”, which hasn’t even grossed $17 million making the whole thing look like a massive bribe from Amazon, helps get her through this difficult time.
Why was it poor taste ?
Melania is a lot younger than the morbidly obese Trump, and indeed likely to outlive him.
The same joke was told about Anna Nicole Smith (who married a nonagenarian billionaire).
Nothing to do with the assassination attempt (as MAGA are dishonestly implying) as it was told a day or so before.
And even if it were in poor taste, should politicians, who claim to support free speech, be calling for the firing of a comic.
And the effing Trump crime family complaining about poor taste ? Eff off.
A lot of people thought Starmer would be great after Corbyn and now look. I suspect the same would happen to Burnham or any other replacement.
Totally agree Cyclefree, Andy Burnham failed to set the heather on fire during his Parliamentary career at Westminster and after losing to Jeremy Corbyn he chose to walk away from the hard graft of Opposition politics to run for Greater Manchester Mayoralty so he could become the biggest fish in a smaller political pond. He could have put himself forward to be selected to become a candidate to be an MP again at the last GE but he didn't because he didn't think there would be an opening to run for the Labour leadership again anytime in this Parliament.
The Labour Parliamentary party are between a rock and hard place, they know they have to get rid of Keir Starmer because he is electorally toxic, but their even bigger problem right now is that all the popular front runners within different factions of the Labour party are no more appealing to the electorate than Starmer.
Labour appear to be on a downward spiral at the moment, hence the rental policy to chase down some of the green votes
Disappointed to also see Kemi and the stance on the triple lock
Basically we have no party or policy wanting to front up with the public. Fine - we will be heading for a reckoning with the markets, and we’ll be forced to do it anyway
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Means-testing always sounds like an easy answer, but it creates bad incentives in the system. In this case it would reduce the incentive for those in the middle two quartiles to save for their own retirement, because the government would claw back from them what they managed to save.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
In one way she is correct but she's missed the actuarial point.
The first pensions were set actuarially at just beyond life expectancy. So it would provide an income to those who lived beyond working age. As life expectancy increased there was little move to increase pension age to match. So as life expectancy increases you get the situation where you are on a pension for longer than your working life. Bad economics.
So since people never vote to be poorer, stop giving them the money in the first place and move pension age. Or tax pensioners to match the contributions they should have made actuarially but didn't.
BIB - My dad will reach 30 years retired from the police in May, after serving 30 years. He takes in over 4 grand a month all told.
If the party really want Burnham it will be Burnham. A way will be found. Starmer doesn't have the political authority to block it again.
The voters still do. It is very difficult to see a seat that an MP could vacate that would guarantee a Burnham win at this moment. He could find himself in the mess Patrick Gordon Walker was in in 1964, with this important difference - he has to get into Parliament *before* he can stand as party leader.
That would be the biggest obstacle, yes. Winning a byelection in the required timeframe. Still, if the will (of the party) is there it would be attempted and whilst success is not guaranteed there'd be a good chance of it.
By the party 'wanting' Andy Burnham btw I mean really wanting him. Wanting him and no other. Wanting him like a man lost for days in the desert wants a drink. If this is (or becomes) the settled overwhelming sentiment of MPs and members they will leave no stone unturned to make it happen. Necessity is the mother of etc ...
But this is not a prediction of Burnham Next PM because I don't know if the 'desperately wanting him and no other' condition is going to be met. It certainly isn't with the Labour member typing these words.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
The state pension is already means tested through the taxation system with increasing proportions being returned to HMRC based on the overall income of the pensioner.
If you're suggesting that 'the rich' should not receive any state pension then its only a small step to suggesting that they they should not receive any free health treatment from the NHS, free state education for their kids etc.
With 'the rich', (ie the people who likely have the most skilled jobs, who pay the most taxes and who are most in demand by other countries), increasingly wondering what they gain by living in the UK.
A lot of people thought Starmer would be great after Corbyn and now look. I suspect the same would happen to Burnham or any other replacement.
I was just thinking this. It’s not as though he’s some kind of absolute superstar, like bringing back Blair or Cameron, or even when Boris came back after being Mayor of London. Strikes me as similar to becoming a better player when you’re not in the team at football.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
If the party really want Burnham it will be Burnham. A way will be found. Starmer doesn't have the political authority to block it again.
The voters still do. It is very difficult to see a seat that an MP could vacate that would guarantee a Burnham win at this moment. He could find himself in the mess Patrick Gordon Walker was in in 1964, with this important difference - he has to get into Parliament *before* he can stand as party leader.
That would be the biggest obstacle, yes. Winning a byelection in the required timeframe. Still, if the will (of the party) is there it would be attempted and whilst success is not guaranteed there'd be a good chance of it.
By the party 'wanting' Andy Burnham btw I mean really wanting him. Wanting him and no other. Wanting him like a man lost for days in the desert wants a drink. If this is (or becomes) the settled overwhelming sentiment of MPs and members they will leave no stone unturned to make it happen. Necessity is the mother of etc ...
But this is not a prediction of Burnham Next PM because I don't know if the 'desperately wanting him and no other' condition is going to be met. It certainly isn't with the Labour member typing these words.
Burnham is neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George. There are alternatives who would be at least as capable.
I'm reminded of the shenanigans around Home in 1963. Out of 400 MPs they must have one who would be able to cope.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Means-testing always sounds like an easy answer, but it creates bad incentives in the system. In this case it would reduce the incentive for those in the middle two quartiles to save for their own retirement, because the government would claw back from them what they managed to save.
Really? How many of the middle two quartiles actually want to live on £10k per year in retirement rather than save for a better one purely to shove two fingers up at HMG?
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
At around £1k per child, child benefit is already seen as controversial.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Listenening to the Foreign Affairs committee the single most obvious point is Starmer made the decision to appoint Mandelson irrespective of the known toxicity of Mandelson and rushed his appointment before the full process was completed
Everything else is noise and the person responsible is the Prime Minister as he protests too much
"The experience stunned Ms. Ross-Mahé, who previously supported President Trump... “I didn’t think these things existed,” she said of the immigration facilities she was held in.
I would guess that the Stasi were used to settle a lot of personal disputes too.
It would be interesting to know how many HMRC investigations are triggered by dumped ex's grassing them up. I know a colleague tipped them off about his wife's business after she left him.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Sure, but we didn't know then that we would have a pandemic, global financial crash and a series of major wars in a short space of time that paralysed our economy. Things change. What we thought we would be able to afford we can't now.
O/t, but how come the BBC is able to have a headline like this 'Russian superyacht sails through Strait of Hormuz despite blockade.'
Possibly with it's (sanctioned) billionaire owner on board. I can understand the Iranians letting it through, but I thought Trump's navy was on blockade duty as well?
A lot of people thought Starmer would be great after Corbyn and now look. I suspect the same would happen to Burnham or any other replacement.
As I keep saying, nobody on the Labour Party is generating ideas, nor understands the deep problems with the country, nor generating solutions to them. The bills and acts being generated by the Govt are reasonable, but feel like they are solving the problems of a prosperous low-debt secure social-democratic country - more benefits, renters' rights, etc. Not bad per se, but definitely missing the point.
Similarly with Burnham: not bad per se, just missing the point. Replacing one figurehead with no ideas with another will not cure anything, regardless of how good he is at communicating
Listenening to the Foreign Affairs committee the single most obvious point is Starmer made the decision to appoint Mandelson irrespective of the known toxicity of Mandelson and rushed his appointment before the full process was completed
Everything else is noise and the person responsible is the Prime Minister as he protests too much
Par for the course with Sir Keir, he does something that looks, and probably is, wrong, then scrabbles around finding legal technicalities that don’t convince anyone but might just about get him off.
He will get found out for Currygate one day too I reckon
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Means-testing always sounds like an easy answer, but it creates bad incentives in the system. In this case it would reduce the incentive for those in the middle two quartiles to save for their own retirement, because the government would claw back from them what they managed to save.
Really? How many of the middle two quartiles actually want to live on £10k per year in retirement rather than save for a better one purely to shove two fingers up at HMG?
Means-testing will reduce the return they get on saving for their retirement. It would be entirely rational to save less in response. It's not a binary thing where they will not save at all, but it will make spending now look like a relatively better option.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
I don't expect I'm the only one on PB planning their retirement on the basis that there won't be a state pension for me, despite full NI credits. I support the state pension, I support it being universal because otherwise it will wither like other benefits, but I'm not basing my finances on it still existing.
If the party really want Burnham it will be Burnham. A way will be found. Starmer doesn't have the political authority to block it again.
The voters still do. It is very difficult to see a seat that an MP could vacate that would guarantee a Burnham win at this moment. He could find himself in the mess Patrick Gordon Walker was in in 1964, with this important difference - he has to get into Parliament *before* he can stand as party leader.
That would be the biggest obstacle, yes. Winning a byelection in the required timeframe. Still, if the will (of the party) is there it would be attempted and whilst success is not guaranteed there'd be a good chance of it.
By the party 'wanting' Andy Burnham btw I mean really wanting him. Wanting him and no other. Wanting him like a man lost for days in the desert wants a drink. If this is (or becomes) the settled overwhelming sentiment of MPs and members they will leave no stone unturned to make it happen. Necessity is the mother of etc ...
But this is not a prediction of Burnham Next PM because I don't know if the 'desperately wanting him and no other' condition is going to be met. It certainly isn't with the Labour member typing these words.
Burnham is neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George. There are alternatives who would be at least as capable.
I'm reminded of the shenanigans around Home in 1963. Out of 400 MPs they must have one who would be able to cope.
I'm not on the Andy train personally but I don't think it's clear either way how he would be as PM. There's evidence he'd be good and evidence he'd be poor. It's suck it and see, basically, which also applies to most of the other realistic contenders.
My point is more of a caution against laying him purely because he's not an MP. His current price isn't too short imo.
O/t, but how come the BBC is able to have a headline like this 'Russian superyacht sails through Strait of Hormuz despite blockade.'
Possibly with it's (sanctioned) billionaire owner on board. I can understand the Iranians letting it through, but I thought Trump's navy was on blockade duty as well?
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
Labour appear to be on a downward spiral at the moment, hence the rental policy to chase down some of the green votes
Disappointed to also see Kemi and the stance on the triple lock
Basically we have no party or policy wanting to front up with the public. Fine - we will be heading for a reckoning with the markets, and we’ll be forced to do it anyway
Not if a non means tested state pension and large welfare budget is funded by higher taxes and Labour is increasing taxes on the wealthy and freezing income tax thresholds
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Means-testing always sounds like an easy answer, but it creates bad incentives in the system. In this case it would reduce the incentive for those in the middle two quartiles to save for their own retirement, because the government would claw back from them what they managed to save.
Really? How many of the middle two quartiles actually want to live on £10k per year in retirement rather than save for a better one purely to shove two fingers up at HMG?
Means-testing will reduce the return they get on saving for their retirement. It would be entirely rational to save less in response. It's not a binary thing where they will not save at all, but it will make spending now look like a relatively better option.
Why would you expect people to do otherwise?
If I want a 30-40k a year retirement (I do) and I were fully confident (I am not) in a non means tested state pension then I'd plan to save privately for 20-30k and rely on the 10k from state pension to do the rest. I don't think it sustainable so am planning more like 25-35k privately and can manage the gap by timing retirement age.
Your suggestion that because I don't think I'm going to get 10k from the government if I have my own pension I should just settle for £10k a year when I'd like 30-40k a year makes absolutely zero sense to me. I accept that some people have this viewpoint but I find it baffling and self destructive - living on that amount when you don't have to is not winning by getting one over the system.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
I don't expect I'm the only one on PB planning their retirement on the basis that there won't be a state pension for me, despite full NI credits. I support the state pension, I support it being universal because otherwise it will wither like other benefits, but I'm not basing my finances on it still existing.
It'll exist, but what is uncertain is the age you'll receive it at (I reckon a working assumption of 70 for myself (Born 1981)) and whether or not it will have kept pace with inflation (The triple lock means it will slightly outpace inflation in the medium term).
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
Benefits should be taxed, crazy that they can coin in plenty as well as free rent , council tax etc and not pay a penny in tax. Re NI, I paid it for 50 years , WTF should I pay it when on pension that I have paid dearly for and pay 50% of it in tax already. You fecking jealous halfwits who hate pensioners need to give your head a good wobble. Better to tax callous woke arseholes like you for the poor benefits junkies extras rather than beggar more pensioners.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Listenening to the Foreign Affairs committee the single most obvious point is Starmer made the decision to appoint Mandelson irrespective of the known toxicity of Mandelson and rushed his appointment before the full process was completed
Everything else is noise and the person responsible is the Prime Minister as he protests too much
Yes, from what has been leaked, rumoured and reported, there is nothing in the vetting that was not already known to anyone who read newspapers. For Starmer to blame the blob or even rely on the process ignores that he should have nixed the appointment when it was first suggested.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Mainly due to the pensioner generation having their own homes while Generation Rent are waiting for theirs, if they can afford to buy one.
But I think Reeves suggestion to freeze rents after the RRA comes in could give a bit of a political bounce. It helps the renters at the expense of the far fewer numbers of landlords so a tick in the box for Labour versus the Reformatives.
But it only delays rent increases and leads to greater pressure later, I hear some say. Yes, but the RRA allows a challenge for £47 and delays the outcome until the much under pressure court system delivers a result which further suppresses 'market rent' the basis of the decision by the Tribunal. Also the effects should work their way into lower inflation and the knock on effects of inflation linked benefits, pensions and housing benefit.
Someone at the Treasury has been looking at the numbers.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
The thesis is that the armed forces should be protected form vexatious c*nts like the current attorney general.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
I'm sure Russian trolls have been playing the extremes of both sides of the pensions debate. Encouraging and deepening division is what they do. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue with pensioners being shielded from the effects of Britain's declining wealth for nearly two decades.
Do you actyually live in UK, shielded my arse, worst pension in eth developed world and paying the highest contributions, apart from the lazy feckers who are on benefits for life and don't pay any tax.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
Well, she's wrong. The triple lock is difficult to defend morally and impossible to defend numerically.
If you are trying to live on £12.5k a year, you are poor. You meet the definition of poverty, by many metrics.
The Triple Lock was about building in an increase in this, so that the poorest pensioners would no longer be in poverty.
If we don’t increase the pension, we will just end up with people claiming more poverty related benefits to fix the issue. Which is complicated and expensive - means testing.
The solution is to tax everyone who is not poor, including rich pensioners. The advantage here is that rich pensioners already have a tax return. So any changes feed through automatically.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Means-testing always sounds like an easy answer, but it creates bad incentives in the system. In this case it would reduce the incentive for those in the middle two quartiles to save for their own retirement, because the government would claw back from them what they managed to save.
Really? How many of the middle two quartiles actually want to live on £10k per year in retirement rather than save for a better one purely to shove two fingers up at HMG?
Means-testing will reduce the return they get on saving for their retirement. It would be entirely rational to save less in response. It's not a binary thing where they will not save at all, but it will make spending now look like a relatively better option.
Why would you expect people to do otherwise?
If I want a 30-40k a year retirement (I do) and I were fully confident (I am not) in a non means tested state pension then I'd plan to save privately for 20-30k and rely on the 10k from state pension to do the rest. I don't think it sustainable so am planning more like 25-35k privately and can manage the gap by timing retirement age.
Your suggestion that because I don't think I'm going to get 10k from the government if I have my own pension I should just settle for £10k a year when I'd like 30-40k a year makes absolutely zero sense to me. I accept that some people have this viewpoint but I find it baffling and self destructive - living on that amount when you don't have to is not winning by getting one over the system.
That's not what I am arguing. I explicitly said that it's not a binary thing, but that it would reduce people's willingness to defer spending by saving for retirement.
If you will not read my point then there is no point in me responding further.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
The thesis is that the armed forces should be protected form vexatious c*nts like the current attorney general.
Who is deciding what is vexatious and how? You? By reading the Telegraph?
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
In one way she is correct but she's missed the actuarial point.
The first pensions were set actuarially at just beyond life expectancy. So it would provide an income to those who lived beyond working age. As life expectancy increased there was little move to increase pension age to match. So as life expectancy increases you get the situation where you are on a pension for longer than your working life. Bad economics.
So since people never vote to be poorer, stop giving them the money in the first place and move pension age. Or tax pensioners to match the contributions they should have made actuarially but didn't.
BIB - My dad will reach 30 years retired from the police in May, after serving 30 years. He takes in over 4 grand a month all told.
How many get 30 years worth , certainly nowadays with age at 67 and going up to 70 , they will be rarer than rocking horse shit. Most people who actually worked for 50+ years will get back a fraction of what they paid. Even in USA they pay far better SS and tax free to boot , banana republics look after therir pensioners better than this shithole country.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
Benefits should be taxed, crazy that they can coin in plenty as well as free rent , council tax etc and not pay a penny in tax. Re NI, I paid it for 50 years , WTF should I pay it when on pension that I have paid dearly for and pay 50% of it in tax already. You fecking jealous halfwits who hate pensioners need to give your head a good wobble. Better to tax callous woke arseholes like you for the poor benefits junkies extras rather than beggar more pensioners.
Let's repeat this again.
If you are getting a full pension you get £241.50 a week with no access to other benefits - to get that you need to be older than 75 (73 if female) and on the old pension or not receive a full pension
Edit - corrected the comment I wanted. to comment on.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
If the party really want Burnham it will be Burnham. A way will be found. Starmer doesn't have the political authority to block it again.
The voters still do. It is very difficult to see a seat that an MP could vacate that would guarantee a Burnham win at this moment. He could find himself in the mess Patrick Gordon Walker was in in 1964, with this important difference - he has to get into Parliament *before* he can stand as party leader.
That would be the biggest obstacle, yes. Winning a byelection in the required timeframe. Still, if the will (of the party) is there it would be attempted and whilst success is not guaranteed there'd be a good chance of it.
By the party 'wanting' Andy Burnham btw I mean really wanting him. Wanting him and no other. Wanting him like a man lost for days in the desert wants a drink. If this is (or becomes) the settled overwhelming sentiment of MPs and members they will leave no stone unturned to make it happen. Necessity is the mother of etc ...
But this is not a prediction of Burnham Next PM because I don't know if the 'desperately wanting him and no other' condition is going to be met. It certainly isn't with the Labour member typing these words.
Burnham is neither Winston Churchill or David Lloyd George. There are alternatives who would be at least as capable.
I'm reminded of the shenanigans around Home in 1963. Out of 400 MPs they must have one who would be able to cope.
Burnham might beat Farage though which the others probably wouldn't
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
Well, she's wrong. The triple lock is difficult to defend morally and impossible to defend numerically.
If you are trying to live on £12.5k a year, you are poor. You meet the definition of poverty, by many metrics.
The Triple Lock was about building in an increase in this, so that the poorest pensioners would no longer be in poverty.
If we don’t increase the pension, we will just end up with people claiming more poverty related benefits to fix the issue. Which is complicated and expensive - means testing.
The solution is to tax everyone who is not poor, including rich pensioners. The advantage here is that rich pensioners already have a tax return. So any changes feed through automatically.
Are you on benefits such that you don't realise we are already among the highest taxed people on the planet already and they have to leave you some incentive to knock your pan in for 50 years rather than just living off the state largesse.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
I don't expect I'm the only one on PB planning their retirement on the basis that there won't be a state pension for me, despite full NI credits. I support the state pension, I support it being universal because otherwise it will wither like other benefits, but I'm not basing my finances on it still existing.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
The thesis is that the armed forces should be protected form vexatious c*nts like the current attorney general.
Who is deciding what is vexatious and how? You? By reading the Telegraph?
Nah, we should just allow Lord Hermer and the Messer's of Public Interest Lawyer's to do that. The true arbiters of justice.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Means-testing always sounds like an easy answer, but it creates bad incentives in the system. In this case it would reduce the incentive for those in the middle two quartiles to save for their own retirement, because the government would claw back from them what they managed to save.
Really? How many of the middle two quartiles actually want to live on £10k per year in retirement rather than save for a better one purely to shove two fingers up at HMG?
Means-testing will reduce the return they get on saving for their retirement. It would be entirely rational to save less in response. It's not a binary thing where they will not save at all, but it will make spending now look like a relatively better option.
Why would you expect people to do otherwise?
If I want a 30-40k a year retirement (I do) and I were fully confident (I am not) in a non means tested state pension then I'd plan to save privately for 20-30k and rely on the 10k from state pension to do the rest. I don't think it sustainable so am planning more like 25-35k privately and can manage the gap by timing retirement age.
Your suggestion that because I don't think I'm going to get 10k from the government if I have my own pension I should just settle for £10k a year when I'd like 30-40k a year makes absolutely zero sense to me. I accept that some people have this viewpoint but I find it baffling and self destructive - living on that amount when you don't have to is not winning by getting one over the system.
That's not what I am arguing. I explicitly said that it's not a binary thing, but that it would reduce people's willingness to defer spending by saving for retirement.
If you will not read my point then there is no point in me responding further.
Not expecting a means tested state pension increases my propensity to save, and should do the same for any rational human with the lifestyle that allows that. I accept humans are not rational and not all can afford to save. Reducing saving because of no expected state pension is self harming.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Fecking mental and only a nutjob could come up with such a money tree idea.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
Well, she's wrong. The triple lock is difficult to defend morally and impossible to defend numerically.
If you are trying to live on £12.5k a year, you are poor. You meet the definition of poverty, by many metrics.
The Triple Lock was about building in an increase in this, so that the poorest pensioners would no longer be in poverty.
If we don’t increase the pension, we will just end up with people claiming more poverty related benefits to fix the issue. Which is complicated and expensive - means testing.
The solution is to tax everyone who is not poor, including rich pensioners. The advantage here is that rich pensioners already have a tax return. So any changes feed through automatically.
Which metrics? State Pension put single and couple households well clear of the poverty line. The only thing that could push them into poverty would be housing costs, and we know that only 10% of pensioners rent or are still paying off a mortgage.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
Most benefits are subject to tax - the only reason you don't pay income tax on your state pension is because it's £12050 which is below the £12500 income tax allowance.
A pensioner receiving £126,000 is fully taxed on their state pension (yes edge case but accurate).
Sir Keir Starmer ***will*** impose a three-line whip on Labour MPs to oppose the motion referring him to the privileges committee for misleading the Commons, as we first reported at the weekend
Oh dear oh dear.
Surely there must be a minister or two prepared to resign over this, on a point of principle?
Barton said he disagreed with Downing Street that vetting had to be completed by the time of Trump’s inauguration, that Karen Pierce could have stayed in place for longer. He says Downing Street’s haste to complete vetting ASAP and get Mandelson to Washington was unnecessary
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
What do you actually mean by 'means test the triple lock' ?
Are you suggesting that pensioners should get varying levels of increase to their state pension each year depending on how wealthy they are ?
If so, that would be a very fiddly system guaranteed to annoy people when someone they knew got a bigger increase.
He’s just following Kemi’s lead in misleading people into thinking the triple lock is some sort of fixed amount, when actually it’s a vicious ratchet which is going to bankrupt the country.
Hope for Starmer? Seems to be different views of the same committee appearance:
Alex Wickham @alexwickham · 26m Suspect that went about as well for No10 as they could have hoped. Barton clear that the original sin was Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson. But on the process which has been key to the last few weeks he has largely bailed them out.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 19m Barton has literally spent 85 minutes detailing how Starmer lied when he said due process was followed.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
Most benefits are subject to tax - the only reason you don't pay income tax on your state pension is because it's £12050 which is below the £12500 income tax allowance.
A pensioner receiving £126,000 is fully taxed on their state pension (yes edge case but accurate).
Don't I know it but if your only income is the state pension then you get pension credits which get you a shedload of benefits , I have some relatives who are getting them , rent paid , peanuts for council tax , no tax , etc. They can live a pretty reasonable life. It is the poor mugs who have a pittance private pension who get nothing , pay tax etc and are poor. PS: your last point is accurate
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
In one way she is correct but she's missed the actuarial point.
The first pensions were set actuarially at just beyond life expectancy. So it would provide an income to those who lived beyond working age. As life expectancy increased there was little move to increase pension age to match. So as life expectancy increases you get the situation where you are on a pension for longer than your working life. Bad economics.
So since people never vote to be poorer, stop giving them the money in the first place and move pension age. Or tax pensioners to match the contributions they should have made actuarially but didn't.
BIB - My dad will reach 30 years retired from the police in May, after serving 30 years. He takes in over 4 grand a month all told.
How many get 30 years worth , certainly nowadays with age at 67 and going up to 70 , they will be rarer than rocking horse shit. Most people who actually worked for 50+ years will get back a fraction of what they paid. Even in USA they pay far better SS and tax free to boot , banana republics look after therir pensioners better than this shithole country.
I don't agree; I get my OAP, plus three workplace pensions, to which, of course, I contributed. Plus a savings plan I contributed to during my working life. On the last four I pay tax, which is fair enough; the OAP is roughly the same as the Personal Allowance. So far I've had 23 years worth of retired life, after a working life of 43 years. Seems fair enough to me.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
The thesis is that the armed forces should be protected form vexatious c*nts like the current attorney general.
Who is deciding what is vexatious and how? You? By reading the Telegraph?
Nah, we should just allow Lord Hermer and the Messer's of Public Interest Lawyer's to do that. The true arbiters of justice.
It was Baldy Ben who decided to have a public enquiry into the antics of "The Regiment" in Afghanistan. Hermer just represented some of the families of those on the receiving end.
And of course, BB only acted on it when shamed into it by Panorama. Prior to that he, along with many others, just didn't want to fucking know about it.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Fecking mental and only a nutjob could come up with such a money tree idea.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
Most benefits are subject to tax - the only reason you don't pay income tax on your state pension is because it's £12050 which is below the £12500 income tax allowance.
A pensioner receiving £126,000 is fully taxed on their state pension (yes edge case but accurate).
Don't I know it but if your only income is the state pension then you get pension credits which get you a shedload of benefits , I have some relatives who are getting them , rent paid , peanuts for council tax , no tax , etc. They can live a pretty reasonable life. It is the poor mugs who have a pittance private pension who get nothing , pay tax etc and are poor.
Let’s repeat this for the 4th time
If you are on the old state pension (I.e. born before 1951/3 depending on sex) the pension was peanuts and so you may be entitled to a whole set of benefits
If you were born after 1951/3 your £241 is all you get
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
In one way she is correct but she's missed the actuarial point.
The first pensions were set actuarially at just beyond life expectancy. So it would provide an income to those who lived beyond working age. As life expectancy increased there was little move to increase pension age to match. So as life expectancy increases you get the situation where you are on a pension for longer than your working life. Bad economics.
So since people never vote to be poorer, stop giving them the money in the first place and move pension age. Or tax pensioners to match the contributions they should have made actuarially but didn't.
BIB - My dad will reach 30 years retired from the police in May, after serving 30 years. He takes in over 4 grand a month all told.
How many get 30 years worth , certainly nowadays with age at 67 and going up to 70 , they will be rarer than rocking horse shit. Most people who actually worked for 50+ years will get back a fraction of what they paid. Even in USA they pay far better SS and tax free to boot , banana republics look after therir pensioners better than this shithole country.
I don't agree; I get my OAP, plus three workplace pensions, to which, of course, I contributed. Plus a savings plan I contributed to during my working life. On the last four I pay tax, which is fair enough; the OAP is roughly the same as the Personal Allowance. So far I've had 23 years worth of retired life, after a working life of 43 years. Seems fair enough to me.
Not so good if you were starting today at 67 and bit later when it is 70 though OKC. The rest is fact our pension is worst in developed world and unless you have good private pension income or none at all you will be poor. As soon as you get any private pension you are stuffed for all the extra pension credits and will be paying tax.
PS: You will pay tax on your state pension unless you are just counting that as matching your tax allowance, it goes in pot for tax unliek peopel who have pension and pension credits.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
Most benefits are subject to tax - the only reason you don't pay income tax on your state pension is because it's £12050 which is below the £12500 income tax allowance.
A pensioner receiving £126,000 is fully taxed on their state pension (yes edge case but accurate).
Don't I know it but if your only income is the state pension then you get pension credits which get you a shedload of benefits , I have some relatives who are getting them , rent paid , peanuts for council tax , no tax , etc. They can live a pretty reasonable life. It is the poor mugs who have a pittance private pension who get nothing , pay tax etc and are poor.
Let’s repeat this for the 4th time
If you are on the old state pension (I.e. born before 1951/3 depending on sex) the pension was peanuts and so you may be entitled to a whole set of benefits
If you were born after 1951/3 your £241 is all you get
I was born long before 1951 and I wouldn't describe my OAP as 'peanuts.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
Most benefits are subject to tax - the only reason you don't pay income tax on your state pension is because it's £12050 which is below the £12500 income tax allowance.
A pensioner receiving £126,000 is fully taxed on their state pension (yes edge case but accurate).
Don't I know it but if your only income is the state pension then you get pension credits which get you a shedload of benefits , I have some relatives who are getting them , rent paid , peanuts for council tax , no tax , etc. They can live a pretty reasonable life. It is the poor mugs who have a pittance private pension who get nothing , pay tax etc and are poor.
Let’s repeat this for the 4th time
If you are on the old state pension (I.e. born before 1951/3 depending on sex) the pension was peanuts and so you may be entitled to a whole set of benefits
If you were born after 1951/3 your £241 is all you get
Bolox, I know people on new full pension , getting lots of extras on pension credits, entitles them to lots of extra money. If that is your only income you are eligible, tehy also get rent and council tax paid to boot.
HYUFD, you want to "means test the triple lock", forgetting about how faffy and what a non starter it is to start with what element of today's forecast state pension of £12,590.69 is "the triple lock". Pounds and pence please
Comments
Only an issue if you have gaps exceeding 15 years - which as you say as long as you're on top of stuff (Like potentially claiming £0.00 at times if you have savings and are out of work) everyone should make.
It is very important that Labour MPs defy this whip and vote to refer Starmer to the privileges committee, even if they do not think Starmer has a case to answer for misleading the Commons. Only a mass rebellion will prevent it from becoming the norm that such votes are whipped.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-27/jpmorgan-moves-some-paris-traders-to-london-in-brexit-rethink
Melania is a lot younger than the morbidly obese Trump, and indeed likely to outlive him.
The same joke was told about Anna Nicole Smith (who married a nonagenarian billionaire).
Nothing to do with the assassination attempt (as MAGA are dishonestly implying) as it was told a day or so before.
And even if it were in poor taste, should politicians, who claim to support free speech, be calling for the firing of a comic.
And the effing Trump crime family complaining about poor taste ?
Eff off.
The Labour Parliamentary party are between a rock and hard place, they know they have to get rid of Keir Starmer because he is electorally toxic, but their even bigger problem right now is that all the popular front runners within different factions of the Labour party are no more appealing to the electorate than Starmer.
Merely better than Corbyn; which is still true, IMO.
A replacement who was at a minimum honest about the UK's problems might be an improvement. I've no idea if Burnham is that person.
Disappointed to also see Kemi and the stance on the triple lock
Basically we have no party or policy wanting to front up with the public. Fine - we will be heading for a reckoning with the markets, and we’ll be forced to do it anyway
(not channelling anyone in particular)
FWIW, he's a popular and not unsuccessful mayor of a major city which isn't London.
That alone is a point in his favour.
By the party 'wanting' Andy Burnham btw I mean really wanting him. Wanting him and no other. Wanting him like a man lost for days in the desert wants a drink. If this is (or becomes) the settled overwhelming sentiment of MPs and members they will leave no stone unturned to make it happen. Necessity is the mother of etc ...
But this is not a prediction of Burnham Next PM because I don't know if the 'desperately wanting him and no other' condition is going to be met. It certainly isn't with the Labour member typing these words.
If you're suggesting that 'the rich' should not receive any state pension then its only a small step to suggesting that they they should not receive any free health treatment from the NHS, free state education for their kids etc.
With 'the rich', (ie the people who likely have the most skilled jobs, who pay the most taxes and who are most in demand by other countries), increasingly wondering what they gain by living in the UK.
I'm reminded of the shenanigans around Home in 1963. Out of 400 MPs they must have one who would be able to cope.
Around sixty candidates on it.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/economy/others/20260428/korean-stock-market-rises-to-8th-globally-overtakes-uk-on-chip-rally
Everything else is noise and the person responsible is the Prime Minister as he protests too much
Possibly with it's (sanctioned) billionaire owner on board. I can understand the Iranians letting it through, but I thought Trump's navy was on blockade duty as well?
Similarly with Burnham: not bad per se, just missing the point. Replacing one figurehead with no ideas with another will not cure anything, regardless of how good he is at communicating
He will get found out for Currygate one day too I reckon
Why would you expect people to do otherwise?
I support the state pension, I support it being universal because otherwise it will wither like other benefits, but I'm not basing my finances on it still existing.
My point is more of a caution against laying him purely because he's not an MP. His current price isn't too short imo.
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
Barton: if vetting had blocked Mandelson “that would have been a crisis” - because Mandelson already had the job
Your suggestion that because I don't think I'm going to get 10k from the government if I have my own pension I should just settle for £10k a year when I'd like 30-40k a year makes absolutely zero sense to me. I accept that some people have this viewpoint but I find it baffling and self destructive - living on that amount when you don't have to is not winning by getting one over the system.
Re NI, I paid it for 50 years , WTF should I pay it when on pension that I have paid dearly for and pay 50% of it in tax already.
You fecking jealous halfwits who hate pensioners need to give your head a good wobble. Better to tax callous woke arseholes like you for the poor benefits junkies extras rather than beggar more pensioners.
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010.
I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
But I think Reeves suggestion to freeze rents after the RRA comes in could give a bit of a political bounce. It helps the renters at the expense of the far fewer numbers of landlords so a tick in the box for Labour versus the Reformatives.
But it only delays rent increases and leads to greater pressure later, I hear some say. Yes, but the RRA allows a challenge for £47 and delays the outcome until the much under pressure court system delivers a result which further suppresses 'market rent' the basis of the decision by the Tribunal. Also the effects should work their way into lower inflation and the knock on effects of inflation linked benefits, pensions and housing benefit.
Someone at the Treasury has been looking at the numbers.
The Triple Lock was about building in an increase in this, so that the poorest pensioners would no longer be in poverty.
If we don’t increase the pension, we will just end up with people claiming more poverty related benefits to fix the issue. Which is complicated and expensive - means testing.
The solution is to tax everyone who is not poor, including rich pensioners. The advantage here is that rich pensioners already have a tax return. So any changes feed through automatically.
If you will not read my point then there is no point in me responding further.
Mandelson vetting: Sir Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney questioned by Foreign Affairs Committee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyfyhaN-55M
credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
If you are getting a full pension you get £241.50 a week with no access to other benefits - to get that you need to be older than 75 (73 if female) and on the old pension or not receive a full pension
Edit - corrected the comment I wanted. to comment on.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Are you suggesting that pensioners should get varying levels of increase to their state pension each year depending on how wealthy they are ?
If so, that would be a very fiddly system guaranteed to annoy people when someone they knew got a bigger increase.
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
https://spectator.com/article/the-case-against-soldier-f/
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
A pensioner receiving £126,000 is fully taxed on their state pension (yes edge case but accurate).
Surely there must be a minister or two prepared to resign over this, on a point of principle?
Barton said he disagreed with Downing Street that vetting had to be completed by the time of Trump’s inauguration, that Karen Pierce could have stayed in place for longer. He says Downing Street’s haste to complete vetting ASAP and get Mandelson to Washington was unnecessary
Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
·
26m
Suspect that went about as well for No10 as they could have hoped. Barton clear that the original sin was Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson. But on the process which has been key to the last few weeks he has largely bailed them out.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
19m
Barton has literally spent 85 minutes detailing how Starmer lied when he said due process was followed.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2049057665880314170
PS: your last point is accurate
So far I've had 23 years worth of retired life, after a working life of 43 years.
Seems fair enough to me.
And of course, BB only acted on it when shamed into it by Panorama. Prior to that he, along with many others, just didn't want to fucking know about it.
If you are on the old state pension (I.e. born before 1951/3 depending on sex) the pension was peanuts and so you may be entitled to a whole set of benefits
If you were born after 1951/3 your £241 is all you get
PS: You will pay tax on your state pension unless you are just counting that as matching your tax allowance, it goes in pot for tax unliek peopel who have pension and pension credits.