For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
All very reasonable but politically difficult at this time
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
-600 is quite "meh" for the Tories over recent local election cycles.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
Thicko , you do not get state pension at 63, your obsession to include anyone older and poorer than you as a pensioner is laughable. As a Rachman landlord you should know better.
If the average age of landlords is 63, do you not think a chunk of them will be over pension age, which was the original post’s point?
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
For all that Pensions have become a political football, lets not lose sight of the basics:
We all pay into a national pension scheme What we get back from it is a relatively low amount compared to other western European countries
The solution to not being able to afford to pay meagre pensions isn't to cut the pension, its to grow the economy so that we can afford to pay them. Far too much of today's politics is very short termist idiocy. We want a happy and productive workforce, so telling them they have to work til they drop and then be poor isn't going to incentivise people. Well, I say work, we're dpoing a crap job creating jobs as well.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
All very reasonable but politically difficult at this time
Politically impossible if you do it at once.
The healthy elderly are aggressive, entitled and high turnout, like all entitled and undeserving welfare recipients, from the Northern Irish to farmers to Brussels bureaucrats.
So the only way to make it work would be to take a very gradual approach - start a new benefit specifically targeted at old people who need it, freeze the universal pension, then gently increase the former over time while the latter is eroded by inflation.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
You didn't. You paid 50 years because 1) it was the law 2) for your parents and grandparents state pensions.
Hopefully you will at least stop using the pensioners who are far from rich as a shield in this argument as you clearly think them worthy of your contempt.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
Thicko , you do not get state pension at 63, your obsession to include anyone older and poorer than you as a pensioner is laughable. As a Rachman landlord you should know better.
If the average age of landlords is 63, do you not think a chunk of them will be over pension age, which was the original post’s point?
still rich coming from a very well off landlord who is far from 63, yet protests about some pensioners trying to augment their measly pension.
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
Issue is if you get a fiver private pension then you do not get pension credits, the whole benefits and pension system is rigged to help those who will not help themselves and rather spend all their cash/ not work and then ponce off the state and never pay a penny in tax.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
Nope. You paid for 50 yars to pay for the pensions of those who were receiving state pension during those years. The NI contributions have never been about 'saving' for your own pension. That was made explicitly clear when the system was set up. You pay for those who are currently retired and the social contract is that when it is your turn to retire the current workforce pays for you. It isa system built on the basic hope that there will be enough people working at any given time to pay for the pensions of all those who have retired.
Not that I disagree with you entirely. For those of working age who won't work, benefits should be an absolute minimum safety net and nothing more.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
No, what's damaging the country is taking money from those who ARE WORKING, not those that HAVE WORKED, and giving it to people who are still capable of working, like the fit and often affluent elderly. Which is exactly what old age pensions do.
I'm not arguing that those who have to rely on state pensions should be given much more - only that the current system of subsidising the wealthy elderly and those entirely capable of working into their seventies and eighties while moving us to national bankruptcy based on a system that was designed about 150 years ago in Germany is wrong. There is no way you'd set up the current system the way it is now if you were starting from scratch.
Also another thing to do is reduce national insurance so that the old age pension doesn't come from it - people should use private sector providers. The government has no business being in this area, beyond a certain bare minimum for the incapable and indigent.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
All very reasonable but politically difficult at this time
Politically impossible if you do it at once.
The healthy elderly are aggressive, entitled and high turnout, like all entitled and undeserving welfare recipients, from the Northern Irish to farmers to Brussels bureaucrats.
So the only way to make it work would be to take a very gradual approach - start a new benefit specifically targeted at old people who need it, freeze the universal pension, then gently increase the former over time while the latter is eroded by inflation.
They* have already done that with the old State Pension and the New State Pension.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
The really poor are those whose income is ~£1 above the limit for all the extra benefits.
I think we should taper off pension credit much more slowly, even something extra for pensioners at NMW equivalents, at the expense of higher rate pensioners.
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are the BBC also Farage supporters then ?
I dislike relying on Campbell for a quote, but it's hard to disagree with this.
I know there is a lot of news around but can someone at the Beeb explain to me how a man they keep telling us might be the next PM getting an undisclosed donation of FIVE MILLION POUNDS from a Thai based crypto dealer (with a BS explanation about it being for lifelong security) is not even a news story when the man he wants to replace led the news for days over some glasses and Arsenal tickets? https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/2049725079404028254
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
Another Tory getting their "expectations management" in early, it seems?
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
Which part of Trump is utterly delusional have you not grasped from the last 12 months.
Remember King Charles will be polite enough not to correct him and let Trumps misunderstanding continue as it’s completely harmless while emphasizing how little real power Charles has
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
Issue is if you get a fiver private pension then you do not get pension credits, the whole benefits and pension system is rigged to help those who will not help themselves and rather spend all their cash/ not work and then ponce off the state and never pay a penny in tax.
IANAE but I think the bit I have put in bold is not true. If your total relevant income is low enough, you qualify for pension credit, despite having a small private pension. But the relevant income levels are very low for everyone. Get rich scheme it ain't.
There is of course some truth, though not the whole truth, in the rest of the comment.
The media distorts the issue by DM types focussing on grasping wasters, and the BBC/Guardian tradition finding abundant genuine need. Both are true, but it is too complicated to cover properly as it leads to difficult conclusions that can't be easily politicised.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are PBers really quite so cynical ?
Yes. Well I am. I do believe that every politician is corrupt.
The difference is that I celebrate when one of them gets caught, no matter which party they are from. If Farage has been breaking the rules they should drop the Houses of Parliament on him.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are PBers really quite so cynical ?
Yes. Well I am. I do believe that every politician is corrupt.
The difference is that I celebrate when one of them gets caught, no matter which party they are from. If Farage has been breaking the rules they should drop the Houses of Parliament on him.
He’ll just call it a witch-hunt and an attempt to take down the “ people’s champion “ !
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
You didn't. You paid 50 years because 1) it was the law 2) for your parents and grandparents state pensions.
Hopefully you will at least stop using the pensioners who are far from rich as a shield in this argument as you clearly think them worthy of your contempt.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
For what it is worth any whinge about pensioners paying tax annoys me while they continue to be protected from NI.
There is the same challenge with adult social care and NHS spending. More folks are placing greater demands, but there are fewer healthy working age people able to prop it up.
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
I think Mr Trump is in the sort of state that cannot register any dissent from people he favours. If the dissent did register, he wouldn't like them.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
Nope. You paid for 50 yars to pay for the pensions of those who were receiving state pension during those years. The NI contributions have never been about 'saving' for your own pension. That was made explicitly clear when the system was set up. You pay for those who are currently retired and the social contract is that when it is your turn to retire the current workforce pays for you. It isa system built on the basic hope that there will be enough people working at any given time to pay for the pensions of all those who have retired.
Not that I disagree with you entirely. For those of working age who won't work, benefits should be an absolute minimum safety net and nothing more.
Richard, I don't hold with that old chestnut. They never announced state pensions by saying eveybody will pay now for previous workers pensions. It has been mismanagement by politicians using the cash and then pushing that lie. Other countries actually keep their pension funds to be used for pensions. Agree on benefits , far too easy to get , ever increasing amounts and are now a lifestyle / career rather than a safety net and in many many instances a far better career than people who work all their lives.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
Issue is if you get a fiver private pension then you do not get pension credits, the whole benefits and pension system is rigged to help those who will not help themselves and rather spend all their cash/ not work and then ponce off the state and never pay a penny in tax.
IANAE but I think the bit I have put in bold is not true. If your total relevant income is low enough, you qualify for pension credit, despite having a small private pension. But the relevant income levels are very low for everyone. Get rich scheme it ain't.
There is of course some truth, though not the whole truth, in the rest of the comment.
The media distorts the issue by DM types focussing on grasping wasters, and the BBC/Guardian tradition finding abundant genuine need. Both are true, but it is too complicated to cover properly as it leads to difficult conclusions that can't be easily politicised.
yes teh fiver was not intended to be real but the pension credits are real and from what I see of people getting them are in many many cases far far better than a small private pension that is taxed.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are PBers really quite so cynical ?
Yes. Well I am. I do believe that every politician is corrupt.
The difference is that I celebrate when one of them gets caught, no matter which party they are from. If Farage has been breaking the rules they should drop the Houses of Parliament on him.
He’ll just call it a witch-hunt and an attempt to take down the “ people’s champion “ !
Sadly true but I would hope the system is robust enough to deal with that and it would certainly pul away some of those supporters who are more equivocal about him.
And actually, thinking about it as I write, I don't care what he calls it or what his supporters think. We should not be judging the severity of punishment for someone who has broken the rules on the basis of the reaction from their supporters.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are the BBC also Farage supporters then ?
I dislike relying on Campbell for a quote, but it's hard to disagree with this.
I know there is a lot of news around but can someone at the Beeb explain to me how a man they keep telling us might be the next PM getting an undisclosed donation of FIVE MILLION POUNDS from a Thai based crypto dealer (with a BS explanation about it being for lifelong security) is not even a news story when the man he wants to replace led the news for days over some glasses and Arsenal tickets? https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/2049725079404028254
It is simple to disagree. Campbell posts this at 6.38 this morning, 30 April. The BBC posted this yesterday, 29 April:
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are the BBC also Farage supporters then ?
I dislike relying on Campbell for a quote, but it's hard to disagree with this.
I know there is a lot of news around but can someone at the Beeb explain to me how a man they keep telling us might be the next PM getting an undisclosed donation of FIVE MILLION POUNDS from a Thai based crypto dealer (with a BS explanation about it being for lifelong security) is not even a news story when the man he wants to replace led the news for days over some glasses and Arsenal tickets? https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/2049725079404028254
That old soak is just hacked off the days of him ringing up editors to browbeat them over what stories to run has long gone.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
There was a radio 4 podcast a while back on the triple lock, where one guest suggested that the way to sell getting rid of it was that you announce a target, e.g. "pension income should be 1/3 of the average working wage" which we are not yet at but quite close to, and you say "the triple lock has worked to increase pension income, we're nearly there and and we promise to keep the triple lock until we reach that target, at which point we will lock pensions to earnings so they stay at that 1/3 level". IDK if it would work but it sounded to me like it had at least a chance of being more sellable to voters that a straight dumping of it.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
Which could be achieved by combining NI and IT into one combined tax that everyone pays on income, earned and unearned, with some or all of the saving redirected into lifting the personal tax allowance - thereby also putting some decent headroom above the state pension so solving several problems with one stone.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
Thicko , you do not get state pension at 63, your obsession to include anyone older and poorer than you as a pensioner is laughable. As a Rachman landlord you should know better.
If the average age of landlords is 63, do you not think a chunk of them will be over pension age, which was the original post’s point?
still rich coming from a very well off landlord who is far from 63, yet protests about some pensioners trying to augment their measly pension.
Have you noticed it’s only the pensions side of the benefits bill they feel so strongly about and has to be cut. The other side they are quite happy to see continue to grow apace. Non pension benefits up by 6.4% this year.
Cut the state pension side to fund the non pension side it seems.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
Issue is if you get a fiver private pension then you do not get pension credits, the whole benefits and pension system is rigged to help those who will not help themselves and rather spend all their cash/ not work and then ponce off the state and never pay a penny in tax.
IANAE but I think the bit I have put in bold is not true. If your total relevant income is low enough, you qualify for pension credit, despite having a small private pension. But the relevant income levels are very low for everyone. Get rich scheme it ain't.
There is of course some truth, though not the whole truth, in the rest of the comment.
The media distorts the issue by DM types focussing on grasping wasters, and the BBC/Guardian tradition finding abundant genuine need. Both are true, but it is too complicated to cover properly as it leads to difficult conclusions that can't be easily politicised.
yes teh fiver was not intended to be real but the pension credits are real and from what I see of people getting them are in many many cases far far better than a small private pension that is taxed.
That may well be true. The use of benefits like pension credit as a gateway to loads of free stuff can work badly for the not rich just above the thresholds, but the levels after pension credit are so low it makes no-one wealthy.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
Nope. You paid for 50 yars to pay for the pensions of those who were receiving state pension during those years. The NI contributions have never been about 'saving' for your own pension. That was made explicitly clear when the system was set up. You pay for those who are currently retired and the social contract is that when it is your turn to retire the current workforce pays for you. It isa system built on the basic hope that there will be enough people working at any given time to pay for the pensions of all those who have retired.
Not that I disagree with you entirely. For those of working age who won't work, benefits should be an absolute minimum safety net and nothing more.
Richard, I don't hold with that old chestnut. They never announced state pensions by saying eveybody will pay now for previous workers pensions. It has been mismanagement by politicians using the cash and then pushing that lie. Other countries actually keep their pension funds to be used for pensions. Agree on benefits , far too easy to get , ever increasing amounts and are now a lifestyle / career rather than a safety net and in many many instances a far better career than people who work all their lives.
Wrong I am afraid. Both in the 1942 Beveridge report and in the 1946 National Insurance Act it was explicit that current contributions would be paying for current pensioners. Attlee and his ministers also made it very clear at the time. It was the only way the system could work at that time given the state of post war finances.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are PBers really quite so cynical ?
Yes. Well I am. I do believe that every politician is corrupt.
The difference is that I celebrate when one of them gets caught, no matter which party they are from. If Farage has been breaking the rules they should drop the Houses of Parliament on him.
He’ll just call it a witch-hunt and an attempt to take down the “ people’s champion “ !
Sadly true but I would hope the system is robust enough to deal with that and it would certainly pul away some of those supporters who are more equivocal about him.
And actually, thinking about it as I write, I don't care what he calls it or what his supporters think. We should not be judging the severity of punishment for someone who has broken the rules on the basis of the reaction from their supporters.
I think this should hurt his reputation more than the money
“He also said he wanted to be free to campaign in the US presidential election later that year.
“Important though the general election is, the contest in the United States of America on 5 November has huge global significance,” he said.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
That equates to taking more from those who have worked and giving more to those that have not worked.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
No, what's damaging the country is taking money from those who ARE WORKING, not those that HAVE WORKED, and giving it to people who are still capable of working, like the fit and often affluent elderly. Which is exactly what old age pensions do.
I'm not arguing that those who have to rely on state pensions should be given much more - only that the current system of subsidising the wealthy elderly and those entirely capable of working into their seventies and eighties while moving us to national bankruptcy based on a system that was designed about 150 years ago in Germany is wrong. There is no way you'd set up the current system the way it is now if you were starting from scratch.
Also another thing to do is reduce national insurance so that the old age pension doesn't come from it - people should use private sector providers. The government has no business being in this area, beyond a certain bare minimum for the incapable and indigent.
No we should be ringfencing national insurance to fund the state pension and JSA. We need more contributory state pensions not more income tax funded pension credit for the poorest pensioners.
There is now automatic enrollment in workplace private pension schemes anyway
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are the BBC also Farage supporters then ?
I dislike relying on Campbell for a quote, but it's hard to disagree with this.
I know there is a lot of news around but can someone at the Beeb explain to me how a man they keep telling us might be the next PM getting an undisclosed donation of FIVE MILLION POUNDS from a Thai based crypto dealer (with a BS explanation about it being for lifelong security) is not even a news story when the man he wants to replace led the news for days over some glasses and Arsenal tickets? https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/2049725079404028254
All why-isn't-this-a-story stories rapidly run up against the fact that it is a story. It's there on the front page of the BBC news website.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
There was a radio 4 podcast a while back on the triple lock, where one guest suggested that the way to sell getting rid of it was that you announce a target, e.g. "pension income should be 1/3 of the average working wage" which we are not yet at but quite close to, and you say "the triple lock has worked to increase pension income, we're nearly there and and we promise to keep the triple lock until we reach that target, at which point we will lock pensions to earnings so they stay at that 1/3 level". IDK if it would work but it sounded to me like it had at least a chance of being more sellable to voters that a straight dumping of it.
The other way to defuse the triple lock is to make it cumulative. Just say the change in the pension will always be the highest of the change in three elements from 1/1/2027. 1. It's still a triple lock, 2. It is much less problematic, 3. No-one will understand
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
You didn't. You paid 50 years because 1) it was the law 2) for your parents and grandparents state pensions.
Hopefully you will at least stop using the pensioners who are far from rich as a shield in this argument as you clearly think them worthy of your contempt.
Feck off you sanctimonious twat, I am using no-one as a shield and only have contempt for arseholes like you. You are likely one of these arseholes who pay nothing and whine all the time. The contract was I paid NI and I got a state pension, a pittance given what I paid as well but such is life and luckily unlike many I actually worked hard and looked after myself, no sponging of a penny.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
There was a radio 4 podcast a while back on the triple lock, where one guest suggested that the way to sell getting rid of it was that you announce a target, e.g. "pension income should be 1/3 of the average working wage" which we are not yet at but quite close to, and you say "the triple lock has worked to increase pension income, we're nearly there and and we promise to keep the triple lock until we reach that target, at which point we will lock pensions to earnings so they stay at that 1/3 level". IDK if it would work but it sounded to me like it had at least a chance of being more sellable to voters that a straight dumping of it.
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
Which part of Trump is utterly delusional have you not grasped from the last 12 months.
Remember King Charles will be polite enough not to correct him and let Trumps misunderstanding continue as it’s completely harmless while emphasizing how little real power Charles has
That's essentially the point. Everyone has been lauding the success of the visit, and yet it has changed almost nothing, I think.
Trump, in the last 24 hours, has also effectively dismissed the king's comments on NATO and Ukraine.
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
I was thinking about the media reaction not the parties
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
Charles job is to maintain good relations between the UK and other nations, it's not to try and steer foreign policy. He has manifestly succeeded given the effective scope of his brief.
It is not true global power, mind - Trump is not going to change course on Iran due to his visit.
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
Another Tory getting their "expectations management" in early, it seems?
Nope - was suggesting what I think the media story will be.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
Exactly.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
I don’t think that post has the intended effect tbh - it just demonstrates how pensioner incomes have increased significantly. A chunk of that will be property income siphoned off some impoverished Gen Zer - the average age of landlords is 63.
It’s a good argument for fixing the personal allowance to the state pension though - save on lots of admin for those on the lowest incomes and for HMRC.
(Mr Griffin is talking bollocks too - fixing to CPI is what protects from inflation, no need for a triple lock.)
Thicko , you do not get state pension at 63, your obsession to include anyone older and poorer than you as a pensioner is laughable. As a Rachman landlord you should know better.
If the average age of landlords is 63, do you not think a chunk of them will be over pension age, which was the original post’s point?
still rich coming from a very well off landlord who is far from 63, yet protests about some pensioners trying to augment their measly pension.
It’s not rich at all because I advocate for policies that would seriously harm my personal finances, both in short term (smash landlords) and the long term (abolish triple lock).
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
I was thinking about the media reaction not the parties
I'm talking about the media reaction too. The media are not going to call 500 gains for the Greens "disappointing". I think they're more likely to use words like "historic".
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
The Conservatives would still win more seats than Labour next week though if Hayward's forecast is correct, the Tories may come behind Reform, the LDs and Greens on seats won but their terrible night would still be better than Labour's diabolical night
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
All very reasonable but politically difficult at this time
The next state pension age review reports in 2029, so possibly prior to the election.
There won’t be a major change and Labour are committed to keeping the protocol where notice of any change wont be short. Currently ten years.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
Of course not but to be a grifter and a hypocrite like Starmer is an order of magnitude worse.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
Exactly.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
I think healthy life expectancy has always been lower than 67 in every region of the country.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are PBers really quite so cynical ?
Yes. Well I am. I do believe that every politician is corrupt.
The difference is that I celebrate when one of them gets caught, no matter which party they are from. If Farage has been breaking the rules they should drop the Houses of Parliament on him.
That’s the question I asked yesterday. No one seemed to know.
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
The Conservatives would still win more seats than Labour next week though if Hayward's forecast is correct, the Tories may come behind Reform, the LDs and Greens on seats won but their terrible night would still be better than Labour's diabolical night
Sure, if you want to squeeze some quantum of solace out of the night for the Tories, not doing as badly as Labour will be it.
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
I was thinking about the media reaction not the parties
I'm talking about the media reaction too. The media are not going to call 500 gains for the Greens "disappointing". I think they're more likely to use words like "historic".
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
I was thinking about the media reaction not the parties
I'm talking about the media reaction too. The media are not going to call 500 gains for the Greens "disappointing". I think they're more likely to use words like "historic".
Hayward is projecting Reform and the LDs to win more seats next week than the Greens.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
You didn't. You paid 50 years because 1) it was the law 2) for your parents and grandparents state pensions.
Hopefully you will at least stop using the pensioners who are far from rich as a shield in this argument as you clearly think them worthy of your contempt.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
For what it is worth any whinge about pensioners paying tax annoys me while they continue to be protected from NI.
There is the same challenge with adult social care and NHS spending. More folks are placing greater demands, but there are fewer healthy working age people able to prop it up.
The commentator is far from daft and knows very well how it is funded, how politicians squander it rather than having a proper fund. You have to be stupid if you do not know that currently paying NI for 35 years or sponging off the state for same period entitles you to a state pension. There are no restrictions on your financial position regarding getting the state pension you are entitled to, suggest you go read the gov website on the topic if you are confused. You also seem to be very confused as when in receipt of said state pension the rules are you do not pay further NI after receiving your entitled pension at age 67. Fact that you are an envious greedy git that does not like paying NI is neither here nor there. I suggest you get a life , stop being envious of 67 year olds and save for when you get there, if you are that lucky.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
Nope. You paid for 50 yars to pay for the pensions of those who were receiving state pension during those years. The NI contributions have never been about 'saving' for your own pension. That was made explicitly clear when the system was set up. You pay for those who are currently retired and the social contract is that when it is your turn to retire the current workforce pays for you. It isa system built on the basic hope that there will be enough people working at any given time to pay for the pensions of all those who have retired.
Not that I disagree with you entirely. For those of working age who won't work, benefits should be an absolute minimum safety net and nothing more.
What you say is correct but it doesn’t help the perception when the govt makes it clear, via the HMRC website, that the state pension is a contributory benefit you earn through NI payments over time.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
Exactly.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
I think healthy life expectancy has always been lower than 67 in every region of the country.
Not so, but not far off now and it has been falling too. Quite a bit since 2012-14
‘In more than 90% of areas the HLE was now below the state pension age of 66 or 67 and in one in 10 it was below 55.’
‘ In England, Richmond in London had the highest rates of HLE at 69 for men and 70 for women. In comparison, in Blackpool it was 51 for men and in Hartlepool it was 51 for women.’
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are PBers really quite so cynical ?
Yes. Well I am. I do believe that every politician is corrupt.
The difference is that I celebrate when one of them gets caught, no matter which party they are from. If Farage has been breaking the rules they should drop the Houses of Parliament on him.
That’s the question I asked yesterday. No one seemed to know.
The Commons can investigate as to whether he should have declared the £5 million gift. Farage claims it was a personal gift and thus he didn't have to. This seems to me unlikely to hold up as much of a defence, but IANAL. If he should have declared the gift, he will have breached the Parliamentary Code of Conduct. Those are rules, but they are not law. He could be suspended or even, I think, expelled from the Commons. A sufficiently long suspension would trigger a recall petition.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
Starmer's free clothes is still a recurrent theme here.
Running alongside a 'nothing to see here' attitude towards Farage's dodgy and far greater pourboires.
I think the issue or difference is that we all believe Farage is a sleazy sleaze bag but Starmer presented as an honest guy. I mean was anyone surprised when Russel Brand was revealed to be the kind of man who ends up on trial for rape?
Pretty well the same kind of excuse made for Trump.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
I would more specifically say that Farage supporters are so cynical that they believe every politician is corrupt. So they stick with Farage because they believe he is on their side, and corruption is no different to anyone else.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Are the BBC also Farage supporters then ?
I dislike relying on Campbell for a quote, but it's hard to disagree with this.
I know there is a lot of news around but can someone at the Beeb explain to me how a man they keep telling us might be the next PM getting an undisclosed donation of FIVE MILLION POUNDS from a Thai based crypto dealer (with a BS explanation about it being for lifelong security) is not even a news story when the man he wants to replace led the news for days over some glasses and Arsenal tickets? https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/2049725079404028254
I was going to add something to my comment about the British media being split between those fawning over Farage and those cowed by him, but if I included every related thought into each of my comments they would be even longer than they already tend to be.
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
I was thinking about the media reaction not the parties
I'm talking about the media reaction too. The media are not going to call 500 gains for the Greens "disappointing". I think they're more likely to use words like "historic".
Election expert Lord Hayward's predictions for next week's local elections...
🔴 - 1,850 seats for Labour 🔵 - 600 seats for Tories 🟣 + 1,550 seats for Reform 🟢 + 500 seats for Greens 🟡 + 150 seats for Lib Dem Dems ⚪️ + 250 seats for independents
- disaster for Labour - One more heave for reform - Disappointment for the greens - Who are the Lib Dems? - Kemi gets away with it because mediocre isn’t an interesting headline
If you look at the total seats won, you get a different picture. LibDems will be looking good.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
I was thinking about the media reaction not the parties
I'm talking about the media reaction too. The media are not going to call 500 gains for the Greens "disappointing". I think they're more likely to use words like "historic".
Hayward is projecting Reform and the LDs to win more seats next week than the Greens.
Yes, which is why I think some PBers' claims that the LibDems will have a bad night and Davey will have to resign are ludicrous. But I don't think that will stop the media using words like "historic" about the Greens!
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
Charles job is to maintain good relations between the UK and other nations, it's not to try and steer foreign policy. He has manifestly succeeded given the effective scope of his brief.
It is not true global power, mind - Trump is not going to change course on Iran due to his visit.
If this is accurate the choice isn't going to be his. This sounds pretty apocalyptic and rings true
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
Exactly.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
I think healthy life expectancy has always been lower than 67 in every region of the country.
Not so, but not far off now and it has been falling too. Quite a bit since 2012-14
‘In more than 90% of areas the HLE was now below the state pension age of 66 or 67 and in one in 10 it was below 55.’
‘ In England, Richmond in London had the highest rates of HLE at 69 for men and 70 for women. In comparison, in Blackpool it was 51 for men and in Hartlepool it was 51 for women.’
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
You didn't. You paid 50 years because 1) it was the law 2) for your parents and grandparents state pensions.
Hopefully you will at least stop using the pensioners who are far from rich as a shield in this argument as you clearly think them worthy of your contempt.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
For what it is worth any whinge about pensioners paying tax annoys me while they continue to be protected from NI.
There is the same challenge with adult social care and NHS spending. More folks are placing greater demands, but there are fewer healthy working age people able to prop it up.
As I understand it, NI contributions are charged on pension contributions (which are exempt from income tax) and that's the rationale for not charging NI on income from a pension.
Now there's a bit of an arbitrage going on here, given the curious structure of NI contribution rates, that are higher at lower incomes, but, still. You'd be charging NI on pension contributions twice if you started charging them on pension income wouldn't you?
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
No, I don’t like Farage’s antics with money, but my point was it isn’t hypocritical for people to have criticised Sor Keir over his gifts but not Farage here, as the point about Lord Alli-gate was how it clashed with Starmer’s piousness.
It’s like not mentioning George Best turning up pissed and making a fool of himself after laughing when Mary Whitehouse did it. Doesn’t mean drinking heavily is good, just that onesie more noteworthy than the other
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
Exactly.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
I think healthy life expectancy has always been lower than 67 in every region of the country.
Not so, but not far off now and it has been falling too. Quite a bit since 2012-14
‘In more than 90% of areas the HLE was now below the state pension age of 66 or 67 and in one in 10 it was below 55.’
‘ In England, Richmond in London had the highest rates of HLE at 69 for men and 70 for women. In comparison, in Blackpool it was 51 for men and in Hartlepool it was 51 for women.’
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
No, I don’t like Farage’s antics with money, but my point was it isn’t hypocritical for people to have criticised Sor Keir over his gifts but not Farage here, as the point about Lord Alli-gate was how it clashed with Starmer’s piousness.
It’s like not mentioning George Best turning up pissed and making a fool of himself after laughing when Mary Whitehouse did it. Doesn’t mean drinking heavily is good, just that onesie more noteworthy than the other
Your metaphor rather omits the scale of Farage's "antics". £5 million in cash. This is nothing like Starmer getting some free concert tickets.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
Exactly.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
I think healthy life expectancy has always been lower than 67 in every region of the country.
Not so, but not far off now and it has been falling too. Quite a bit since 2012-14
‘In more than 90% of areas the HLE was now below the state pension age of 66 or 67 and in one in 10 it was below 55.’
‘ In England, Richmond in London had the highest rates of HLE at 69 for men and 70 for women. In comparison, in Blackpool it was 51 for men and in Hartlepool it was 51 for women.’
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
It’s not a good story for Farage, and there’s a lot of unanswered questions.
We know he wasn’t an MP at the time of the ‘donation’. Was Commons advice on declaring donations followed after his election to Parliament??
Did either donor or recipient pay any tax on the ‘donation’, was tax advice taken by either party at the time?
If the ‘donation’ was to pay for security, surely there’s better ways to do it than straight into an individual’s bank account?
£5m into a personal account from overseas is going to raise a whole bunch of flags in the banking system. Was anyone in the Treasury or BoE alerted to this ‘donation’? What was the exact source of the money?
The unwritten bit is clearly that the ‘donor’ wanted Farage to stand for Parliament, rather than spend the following six months ‘working’ in the US in the run-up to the election there.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
There was a radio 4 podcast a while back on the triple lock, where one guest suggested that the way to sell getting rid of it was that you announce a target, e.g. "pension income should be 1/3 of the average working wage" which we are not yet at but quite close to, and you say "the triple lock has worked to increase pension income, we're nearly there and and we promise to keep the triple lock until we reach that target, at which point we will lock pensions to earnings so they stay at that 1/3 level". IDK if it would work but it sounded to me like it had at least a chance of being more sellable to voters that a straight dumping of it.
The other way to defuse the triple lock is to make it cumulative. Just say the change in the pension will always be the highest of the change in three elements from 1/1/2027. 1. It's still a triple lock, 2. It is much less problematic, 3. No-one will understand
I like that, but it runs into the problem that Brown was trying to avoid when he introduced the floor to increases. There will be years when the pension increase is very small, or zero, or even negative, under that formula.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
You didn't. You paid 50 years because 1) it was the law 2) for your parents and grandparents state pensions.
Hopefully you will at least stop using the pensioners who are far from rich as a shield in this argument as you clearly think them worthy of your contempt.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
For what it is worth any whinge about pensioners paying tax annoys me while they continue to be protected from NI.
There is the same challenge with adult social care and NHS spending. More folks are placing greater demands, but there are fewer healthy working age people able to prop it up.
I suggest the clue is in the name: 'NI'. The concept of insurance is that the totality of what is paid in covers what its liabilities pay out. Most people have no interest in the finer details of how the treasury operates, just as they don't understand how a pension provider like Legal and General operate. Why should they? the outfit that confers an obligation and a right on the UK's workers when they retire also has unfettered power to tax/NI the people. So it's easy compared with the risks taken by Legal and General or Standard Chartered!
What could possibly go wrong?
And, yes, pensioners like me should pay the same tax/NI, under whatever guise, as working people.
Concerning and rather strange story about the police lying
Utterly horrendous story. Can’t say I’m surprised at Plod exceeding their authority.
‘ The pursuit log, obtained by the BBC, reveals how a police helicopter was deployed and preparations were made to deploy armed response vehicles had she made it to the M1 motorway.’
This is a woman whose ‘crime’ was posting on instagram abusive messages she received.
I hope she takes them to the cleaners and gets the settlement she deserves.
Hard not to see Rayner challenging Starmer from the left with a leadership bid if Labour are not only behind Reform but the Tories too, maybe even also the Greens as well on seats and votes after the local elections next week and if as is likely Labour also lose control of the Senedd in Wales.
Streeting would then launch a leadership bid from the right. Streeting also polls better with voters on a net basis than Rayner in comparison to Starmer, 12% say he would be a better PM than Starmer, 22% worse. 15% say Rayner would be a better PM than Starmer, 38% worse. Green voters by 28% to 21% though say Rayner would be a better PM than Sir Keir. Burnham polls best, 34% of voters say he would be a better PM than Starmer only 13% worse but until he is elected again as an MP he cannot stand for Labour leader and PM
Pretty terrible figures for Rayner and Streeting. Rushing into embracing either of them post local elections looks a bad idea.
…but why? I don’t really get it, particularly relative to Starmer. Streeting comes across ok.
I have a friend in a senior role at PHE.
He has been agitating for its abolition for years on the grounds it does nothing good and is mostly staffed by complete idiots, and was desperate to take redundancy.
He's furious with Streeting. Says the whole process has been chronically mismanaged to the extent the process will end up with something more expensive and less efficient.
And, interestingly, although his opinion of the DoH is scarce higher than mine of the DfE, he blames Streeting. Says he goes in for chronic micromanaging and doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
That on its own rings alarm bells.
I work with PHE.
Abolishing an organisation only saves money if you abolish the functions and responsibilities of that organisation. If you merely transfer those responsibilities then there are no savings merely a reorganisation, and one that paralyses activity in the meantime. Streeting fell at that first hurdle.
No one regards Streeting as highly as himself, so I expect him to run in any contest. I also expect him to lose as he is Billy Nomates in the party.
Thanks for this …. but it doesn’t really explain the polling. Since when did niche info on gross incompetence and lack of allies in the party influence that?
My point is he’s an accomplished media performer, much better than Starmer, yet his polling is even worse. Says something about the state of the electorate. Not only are we basically ungovernable, we are also entirely unforgiving.
I agree. We have an electorate that is both entitled and unforgiving. The next party in government will get a punishment beating too, until we run out of options.
No party can get elected telling the truth about the national finances and the economies needed.
We assume that is the case, but when was the last time that a party tried?
It's an untested assumption.
A party willing to consistently ridicule the other four for making absurd spending promises when the deficit is over £100bn might be surprised at the hearing the public is willing to give it.
I think in 1979 there was a sense we couldn't go on as we were but that was as much about Trade Union power as the public finances.
I think if all a party has is ridicule, it won't get very far at all. A party looking to provide "an alternative" and trying to be "honest" has to be completely honest about what it will cut and by how much or whose taxes they will increase and by how much.
They have to be explicit about benefits and pensions and about spending commitments including money on defence for which it can't just be a blank cheque.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
No, I don’t like Farage’s antics with money, but my point was it isn’t hypocritical for people to have criticised Sor Keir over his gifts but not Farage here, as the point about Lord Alli-gate was how it clashed with Starmer’s piousness.
It’s like not mentioning George Best turning up pissed and making a fool of himself after laughing when Mary Whitehouse did it. Doesn’t mean drinking heavily is good, just that onesie more noteworthy than the other
Your metaphor rather omits the scale of Farage's "antics". £5 million in cash. This is nothing like Starmer getting some free concert tickets.
SKS received millions from Zionist lobby in his leadership bid. A fact he concealed until the vote closed.
Streeting received large sums from Private Healthcare lobby.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
No, I don’t like Farage’s antics with money, but my point was it isn’t hypocritical for people to have criticised Sor Keir over his gifts but not Farage here, as the point about Lord Alli-gate was how it clashed with Starmer’s piousness.
It’s like not mentioning George Best turning up pissed and making a fool of himself after laughing when Mary Whitehouse did it. Doesn’t mean drinking heavily is good, just that onesie more noteworthy than the other
Your metaphor rather omits the scale of Farage's "antics". £5 million in cash. This is nothing like Starmer getting some free concert tickets.
Taylor Swift is unlikely to expect a significant quid pro quo for Starmer getting a concert ticket. Will the crypto king expect a bitcoin per quo?
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
Which part of Trump is utterly delusional have you not grasped from the last 12 months.
Remember King Charles will be polite enough not to correct him and let Trumps misunderstanding continue as it’s completely harmless while emphasizing how little real power Charles has
That's essentially the point. Everyone has been lauding the success of the visit, and yet it has changed almost nothing, I think.
Trump, in the last 24 hours, has also effectively dismissed the king's comments on NATO and Ukraine.
I think that the visit has helped to ensure that the post-MAGA relationship between Britain and the US is stronger than it would otherwise have been, assuming that the US escapes from the grip of MAGA politics after Trump is gone.
We also yesterday had Mitch McConnell, of all people, complaining that the administration was holding up the $400m Congress approved for Ukraine Security Assistance, so perhaps the visit has helped to encourage some GOP politicians to put their heads above the parapet.
Yes, which is why I think some PBers' claims that the LibDems will have a bad night and Davey will have to resign are ludicrous. But I don't think that will stop the media using words like "historic" about the Greens!
They use 'historic' for FA cup third round results and Strictly scores. It would be historic if the media avoided such banalities but I fear election night will an orgy of clunking cliché.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
All very reasonable but politically difficult at this time
The next state pension age review reports in 2029, so possibly prior to the election.
There won’t be a major change and Labour are committed to keeping the protocol where notice of any change wont be short. Currently ten years.
None of the rubbish elected as politician's will do the right thing and change benefits and pensions root and branch as it would mean they are likely to get their snouts removed from the trough. They only enact things that keep them enriching themselves on the public teat. Same with tax system.
Listening to Trump on the news, it seems that the great success of the King's visit has been to persuade Trump that Charles agrees with him on everything, and would have supported his Iran war.
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
Which part of Trump is utterly delusional have you not grasped from the last 12 months.
Remember King Charles will be polite enough not to correct him and let Trumps misunderstanding continue as it’s completely harmless while emphasizing how little real power Charles has
That's essentially the point. Everyone has been lauding the success of the visit, and yet it has changed almost nothing, I think.
Trump, in the last 24 hours, has also effectively dismissed the king's comments on NATO and Ukraine.
Trump is so far gone he parrots the last thing anybody said to him. JD Vance wll have had a "quiet word" after King Charles left the White House.
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
No, I don’t like Farage’s antics with money, but my point was it isn’t hypocritical for people to have criticised Sor Keir over his gifts but not Farage here, as the point about Lord Alli-gate was how it clashed with Starmer’s piousness.
It’s like not mentioning George Best turning up pissed and making a fool of himself after laughing when Mary Whitehouse did it. Doesn’t mean drinking heavily is good, just that onesie more noteworthy than the other
Your metaphor rather omits the scale of Farage's "antics". £5 million in cash. This is nothing like Starmer getting some free concert tickets.
SKS received millions from Zionist lobby in his leadership bid. A fact he concealed until the vote closed.
Streeting received large sums from Private Healthcare lobby.
The system is corrupt and rotten to the core.
We need to rip it up.
'SKS received millions from Zionist lobby in his leadership bid.' I'd ask for a link, but for the fear that I'd need to take a shower straightaway, should you provide one.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
It's going to get worse if Triple Lock is not removed.
Pension age per 1,000 persons of working age
2026: 286 2036: 320 (and that's with an increasing pension age)
The pension age increase will be brought forwards again, I reckon.
It needs to rise in line with life expectancy, possibly going up by one year every 6-7 years.
No, the whole system needs to be changed.
The system was designed in an age when heavy agricultural or industrial work was the norm, most people had no means of providing for their retirement, and living into your seventies was much less common.
Now none of those conditions apply the system needs a major rethink and overhaul.
We should target old age pensions on those that actually need them - poor people physically unable to work any more, and not the perfectly capable and affluent who just fancy an end-of-life career break for a decade or two at public expense.
Oh and maybe use some of the money taken from the rich elderly to help with student debt.
Are you doolally, you do not get state pension till you are 67, where the feck do you get a decade or two career break from , not many take 20 years out on state pension and go back to work at near 90. Less than 1% of people in UK live to over 90.
Exactly.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
I think healthy life expectancy has always been lower than 67 in every region of the country.
Not so, but not far off now and it has been falling too. Quite a bit since 2012-14
‘In more than 90% of areas the HLE was now below the state pension age of 66 or 67 and in one in 10 it was below 55.’
‘ In England, Richmond in London had the highest rates of HLE at 69 for men and 70 for women. In comparison, in Blackpool it was 51 for men and in Hartlepool it was 51 for women.’
What does he expect in return, and why could Farage not buy his own house in Clacton when he has that sort of money?
Yesterday whilst looking for an old thread I saw one where the Lord Alli donations story was at its apotheosis, curiously those pro Reform posters who criticised Starmer over that were curiously silent yesterday over this story.
If Farage had also piously pitched himself as Mr Integrity, a humble new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the previous government, their curious silence would be worthy of criticism itself
I think the transgression - of a politician being bought by gifts from private individuals, rather than serving the people of the country - should be considered more of a problem than hypocrisy about the transgression.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
No, I don’t like Farage’s antics with money, but my point was it isn’t hypocritical for people to have criticised Sor Keir over his gifts but not Farage here, as the point about Lord Alli-gate was how it clashed with Starmer’s piousness.
It’s like not mentioning George Best turning up pissed and making a fool of himself after laughing when Mary Whitehouse did it. Doesn’t mean drinking heavily is good, just that onesie more noteworthy than the other
Your metaphor rather omits the scale of Farage's "antics". £5 million in cash. This is nothing like Starmer getting some free concert tickets.
No it just shows how utterly crap Starmer is at everything he does. A little man on almost every sense.
I am always amazed that relatively intelligent people don’t understand how and who funds the state pension. I am guessing the commentator isn’t daft. But, if he doesn’t get it or chooses to actively misrepresent it, or it his “vibes” make him believe that he has paid for his state pension what chance has anyone in convincing the block vote of pensioners of the need to do meaningful reform to stop the daft ratchet of the triple lock.
There was a radio 4 podcast a while back on the triple lock, where one guest suggested that the way to sell getting rid of it was that you announce a target, e.g. "pension income should be 1/3 of the average working wage" which we are not yet at but quite close to, and you say "the triple lock has worked to increase pension income, we're nearly there and and we promise to keep the triple lock until we reach that target, at which point we will lock pensions to earnings so they stay at that 1/3 level". IDK if it would work but it sounded to me like it had at least a chance of being more sellable to voters that a straight dumping of it.
The other way to defuse the triple lock is to make it cumulative. Just say the change in the pension will always be the highest of the change in three elements from 1/1/2027. 1. It's still a triple lock, 2. It is much less problematic, 3. No-one will understand
I like that, but it runs into the problem that Brown was trying to avoid when he introduced the floor to increases. There will be years when the pension increase is very small, or zero, or even negative, under that formula.
Good point, so make it cumulative with regard to earnings and inflation with an annual floor of x% - it always goes up but assuming the maximum of earnings and inflation averages over x% does not run away over time as the current system does. x could probably be 2.5% still.
Concerning and rather strange story about the police lying
That's an astonishing story. Note that it starts with this:
On 13 March 2021, Buzzard-Quashie was arrested at her home in Ealing, west London, on suspicion of sending malicious communications after posting on Instagram some racist messages she had received from former acquaintances.
Long term biggest problem for pensions isn't how long Gen-Xers then millennials are going to live compared to the current boomer pensions it's the utter collapse in birthrate that won't give enough taxpayers. The forecast population pyramids tell the story.
The commentator is far from daft and knows very well how it is funded, how politicians squander it rather than having a proper fund. You have to be stupid if you do not know that currently paying NI for 35 years or sponging off the state for same period entitles you to a state pension. There are no restrictions on your financial position regarding getting the state pension you are entitled to, suggest you go read the gov website on the topic if you are confused. You also seem to be very confused as when in receipt of said state pension the rules are you do not pay further NI after receiving your entitled pension at age 67. Fact that you are an envious greedy git that does not like paying NI is neither here nor there. I suggest you get a life , stop being envious of 67 year olds and save for when you get there, if you are that lucky.
I don't disagree with the substance of your point, but why are you the only regular poster who indulges in unnecessary personal abuse at other posters? You can make exactly the same points without being permanently grumpy. If I want to read about other people being envious greedy gits I'll go to X.
For all the pensioner haters on here who whine about them not paying tax.
The number of taxpayers of pension age increased by 1.02 million or 14.4% since the previous tax year, as the triple lock continues to push retirement incomes up.
This means people of state pension age account for 22.2% of all taxpayers and 16.2% of total income.
There were almost 8.2 million people of state pension age paying tax and 7.8 million people paying tax whose main source of income was their pension, the research shows.
Griffin added: “While part of this increase reflects demographic change as the pension‑age population grows, rising retirement incomes combined with frozen allowances are clearly playing a major role.
"The triple lock has been vital in protecting pensioner incomes during a period of high inflation, but its interaction with frozen personal allowances is creating unintended consequences. In practice, state pension increases designed to preserve living standards are increasingly being clawed back through tax, particularly where even modest private pension income is involved.”
Thanks for confirming they are richer than ever. Which begs the question why do the rest of us have to hand over an ever increasing share of GDP to them?
That's what I thought, too. Malc is making the same mistake as those who quote the statistic that the rich pay some high proportion of all our taxes, thinking this indicates some sort of merit whereas in reality it simply illustrates that the rich are getting most of the money in the first place.
Nobody mentioned the rich and majority of pensioners are far from rich. Most will be paying tax on income under 20K which you probably spend on a holiday
So how about we give all the future pension rises for say the next 10 years from those pensioners with income over 50k to those under 25k?
I'd be fine with that and keeping the triple lock for that period.
I paid for over 50 years for my state pension , not so it could all go to lazy barstewards who would whoop it up and live off my hard graft. Time people in this country learned that you are entitled to nothing you do not earn through your own endeavours. Apart from disabled people who may not be able to work , the rest should be encouraged by much less largesse to get off their butts and look after themselves rather than us importing people to do the jobs they don't fancy.
Nope. You paid for 50 yars to pay for the pensions of those who were receiving state pension during those years. The NI contributions have never been about 'saving' for your own pension. That was made explicitly clear when the system was set up. You pay for those who are currently retired and the social contract is that when it is your turn to retire the current workforce pays for you. It isa system built on the basic hope that there will be enough people working at any given time to pay for the pensions of all those who have retired.
Not that I disagree with you entirely. For those of working age who won't work, benefits should be an absolute minimum safety net and nothing more.
Richard, I don't hold with that old chestnut. They never announced state pensions by saying eveybody will pay now for previous workers pensions. It has been mismanagement by politicians using the cash and then pushing that lie. Other countries actually keep their pension funds to be used for pensions. Agree on benefits , far too easy to get , ever increasing amounts and are now a lifestyle / career rather than a safety net and in many many instances a far better career than people who work all their lives.
Wrong I am afraid. Both in the 1942 Beveridge report and in the 1946 National Insurance Act it was explicit that current contributions would be paying for current pensioners. Attlee and his ministers also made it very clear at the time. It was the only way the system could work at that time given the state of post war finances.
It was the explicit plan when State Pensions were invented.
Because the population was growing - no one could conceive (ha!) of a birth rate below 2.1, so it was the cheap way to do pensions.
Comments
We all pay into a national pension scheme
What we get back from it is a relatively low amount compared to other western European countries
The solution to not being able to afford to pay meagre pensions isn't to cut the pension, its to grow the economy so that we can afford to pay them. Far too much of today's politics is very short termist idiocy. We want a happy and productive workforce, so telling them they have to work til they drop and then be poor isn't going to incentivise people. Well, I say work, we're dpoing a crap job creating jobs as well.
Which is exactly what is already damaging the country.
The poor oldies can already have a myriad of extra benefits including rent reductions, council tax reductions, free food.
https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit
The healthy elderly are aggressive, entitled and high turnout, like all entitled and undeserving welfare recipients, from the Northern Irish to farmers to Brussels bureaucrats.
So the only way to make it work would be to take a very gradual approach - start a new benefit specifically targeted at old people who need it, freeze the universal pension, then gently increase the former over time while the latter is eroded by inflation.
That someone is considered a crook really doesn't excuse their behaviour, particularly if they're aspiring to lead the country.
Hopefully you will at least stop using the pensioners who are far from rich as a shield in this argument as you clearly think them worthy of your contempt.
600 losses is a terrible night for the Tories, not "mediocre".
The Greens will not be disappointed with those numbers.
I would expect that supporters of other parties are less cynical, and so willing to change their support over the issue of corruption.
Not that I disagree with you entirely. For those of working age who won't work, benefits should be an absolute minimum safety net and nothing more.
I'm not arguing that those who have to rely on state pensions should be given much more - only that the current system of subsidising the wealthy elderly and those entirely capable of working into their seventies and eighties while moving us to national bankruptcy based on a system that was designed about 150 years ago in Germany is wrong. There is no way you'd set up the current system the way it is now if you were starting from scratch.
Also another thing to do is reduce national insurance so that the old age pension doesn't come from it - people should use private sector providers. The government has no business being in this area, beyond a certain bare minimum for the incapable and indigent.
*Coalition I believe. LibDem branch?
I'm not sure that's a very useful diplomatic achievement.
I dislike relying on Campbell for a quote, but it's hard to disagree with this.
I know there is a lot of news around but can someone at the Beeb explain to me how a man they keep telling us might be the next PM getting an undisclosed donation of FIVE MILLION POUNDS from a Thai based crypto dealer (with a BS explanation about it being for lifelong security) is not even a news story when the man he wants to replace led the news for days over some glasses and Arsenal tickets?
https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/2049725079404028254
Remember King Charles will be polite enough not to correct him and let Trumps misunderstanding continue as it’s completely harmless while emphasizing how little real power Charles has
There is of course some truth, though not the whole truth, in the rest of the comment.
The media distorts the issue by DM types focussing on grasping wasters, and the BBC/Guardian tradition finding abundant genuine need. Both are true, but it is too complicated to cover properly as it leads to difficult conclusions that can't be easily politicised.
The difference is that I celebrate when one of them gets caught, no matter which party they are from. If Farage has been breaking the rules they should drop the Houses of Parliament on him.
For what it is worth any whinge about pensioners paying tax annoys me while they continue to be protected from NI.
There is the same challenge with adult social care and NHS spending. More folks are placing greater demands, but there are fewer healthy working age people able to prop it up.
And actually, thinking about it as I write, I don't care what he calls it or what his supporters think. We should not be judging the severity of punishment for someone who has broken the rules on the basis of the reaction from their supporters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5pr0gp3gro
It is 100% false. Fact checking it is not hard.
The BBC is impartial and has to be.
Cut the state pension side to fund the non pension side it seems.
“He also said he wanted to be free to campaign in the US presidential election later that year.
“Important though the general election is, the contest in the United States of America on 5 November has huge global significance,” he said.
There is now automatic enrollment in workplace private pension schemes anyway
Everyone has been lauding the success of the visit, and yet it has changed almost nothing, I think.
Trump, in the last 24 hours, has also effectively dismissed the king's comments on NATO and Ukraine.
It is not true global power, mind - Trump is not going to change course on Iran due to his visit.
And in many parts of the country the healthy life expectancy is lower than 67 too.
I retired at 59. I’m funding it myself. My end of life career break is not costing the state anything apart from the large amount of tax and NI I’d pay. But that’s their problem if they penalise workers and working.
I’d already accrued enough years to qualify for a full state pension.
There won’t be a major change and Labour are committed to keeping the protocol where notice of any change wont be short. Currently ten years.
You also seem to be very confused as when in receipt of said state pension the rules are you do not pay further NI after receiving your entitled pension at age 67.
Fact that you are an envious greedy git that does not like paying NI is neither here nor there.
I suggest you get a life , stop being envious of 67 year olds and save for when you get there, if you are that lucky.
Are you really that relaxed about a politician being bought just as long as they never pretended not to be for sale?
‘In more than 90% of areas the HLE was now below the state pension age of 66 or 67 and in one in 10 it was below 55.’
‘ In England, Richmond in London had the highest rates of HLE at 69 for men and 70 for women.
In comparison, in Blackpool it was 51 for men and in Hartlepool it was 51 for women.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20q07w3gl9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlg9x08TGMw
Richmond, of course, is LibDem territory because LibDem governance guarantees a long life.
Now there's a bit of an arbitrage going on here, given the curious structure of NI contribution rates, that are higher at lower incomes, but, still. You'd be charging NI on pension contributions twice if you started charging them on pension income wouldn't you?
It’s like not mentioning George Best turning up pissed and making a fool of himself after laughing when Mary Whitehouse did it. Doesn’t mean drinking heavily is good, just that onesie more noteworthy than the other
Concerning and rather strange story about the police lying
We know he wasn’t an MP at the time of the ‘donation’. Was Commons advice on declaring donations followed after his election to Parliament??
Did either donor or recipient pay any tax on the ‘donation’, was tax advice taken by either party at the time?
If the ‘donation’ was to pay for security, surely there’s better ways to do it than straight into an individual’s bank account?
£5m into a personal account from overseas is going to raise a whole bunch of flags in the banking system. Was anyone in the Treasury or BoE alerted to this ‘donation’? What was the exact source of the money?
The unwritten bit is clearly that the ‘donor’ wanted Farage to stand for Parliament, rather than spend the following six months ‘working’ in the US in the run-up to the election there.
What could possibly go wrong?
And, yes, pensioners like me should pay the same tax/NI, under whatever guise, as working people.
‘ The pursuit log, obtained by the BBC, reveals how a police helicopter was deployed and preparations were made to deploy armed response vehicles had she made it to the M1 motorway.’
This is a woman whose ‘crime’ was posting on instagram abusive messages she received.
I hope she takes them to the cleaners and gets the settlement she deserves.
I think if all a party has is ridicule, it won't get very far at all. A party looking to provide "an alternative" and trying to be "honest" has to be completely honest about what it will cut and by how much or whose taxes they will increase and by how much.
They have to be explicit about benefits and pensions and about spending commitments including money on defence for which it can't just be a blank cheque.
https://x.com/tonyward867811/status/2049731154098409527?s=61
Streeting received large sums from Private Healthcare lobby.
The system is corrupt and rotten to the core.
We need to rip it up.
We also yesterday had Mitch McConnell, of all people, complaining that the administration was holding up the $400m Congress approved for Ukraine Security Assistance, so perhaps the visit has helped to encourage some GOP politicians to put their heads above the parapet.
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2049602057326445021?s=61
Perm is still on fire, new explosions overnight at the refinery and pumping station site.
https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/2049759633808474304
Ukraine news 2:
Two Russian patrol boats were taken out near the Kerch Bridge.
https://x.com/defenceu/status/2049735936490041780
It would be historic if the media avoided such banalities but I fear election night will an orgy of clunking cliché.
Many happy returns!
They only enact things that keep them enriching themselves on the public teat.
Same with tax system.
Because the population was growing - no one could conceive (ha!) of a birth rate below 2.1, so it was the cheap way to do pensions.