It was all pure fantasy. Sadly 52% of the population fell for it. It was a funny thing at the time. I remember being angry when the leave campaign won. I kept asking everyone if they voted leave and hardly anyone said yes. It was almost as if people who did vote, did so in protest, then were a bit sheepish when it went a bit wrong.
That's because your next question would be 'why' and most wouldn't know ... ... or wouldn't want to admit it was xenophobia. The 'pretend' reasons I got ranged from fish quotas to keeping the EU's hands off our vegetables.
Why is the "triple lock" on pensions a thing? I understand the need to protect the old and vulnerable but why does the 2.5% or average earnings calculations get factored in? Obviously a little irrelevant as inflation will be the driver at the moment but it intrigued me.
Yes, but why? If the cost of living stays pretty much the same, and the average earnings doesn't change, why are we giving pensions 2.5% more? It's money that we don't have.
There's your answer. For someone on a pension, who paid all their lives from a basic wage, a 1% increase in the cost of living is serious. The triple lock is supposed to keep things level, not increase their income. And don't forget it's not 'our money' or the Government's ... people pay their dues and rightly expect a return. Or should that money be given to people like Truss 'til the end of their days?
Because it protects the value of the State Pension for future generations Flash. Yes it benefits current pensioners but not as much as people think, If they have any sort of second pension most of the rise is taken up in extra income tax. If pensions fail to at least match inflation then the value will decrease significantly in a very short time. When inflation is low the 2.5% keeps pensions ahead of the curve. I get what you mean about average earnings, I think that was left in because it was the previous mechanism to determine pension rises. A pension worth £500 per month now rising annually at 1% below inflation will be worth £390 in 20 years time
Because we are little old broke people who need lots of extra money for incontinence pants, if you are not retired sod off and do some overtime
Good points. On that last point, I don't think any PM needs a lifetime income from us. Perhaps there's a duty to provide a level of security if it's required but that's it. I don't disagree with any of your point morally, I'm just trying to think through the reality and I'm asking questions because I don't have the answers. People have paid into the system their entire lives and rightly expect a return - but I think we're at a point now where the pot of money that people have paid isn't enough to cover what they're taking out. The government wasting our taxes is another problem, but a separate one. I don't know what the solution is, but it sems like it's costing money, rather than being an efficient system.
Another good response, that I hadn't considered, thanks for that. Do you believe that there will be a state pension in it's current form for future generations though? The eligibility age will continue to rise (due to increase in life expectancy) but it still seems that we're running at a deficit. How do they plug the hole or will we just ignore it for 20 or 30 years until it's broken beyond repair?
Here’s something I don’t get and never have why do businesses like Asda make £2,000,000,000 profit and have half there workers on benefits, in other words we are paying Asda’s staff for them?
It won’t be 20 or 30 years mate, there is a real serious black whole already that no government dares to tackle.
Nobody working full time should need to be on benefits in my opinion, they should be paid a wage significant enough to live off. But people will make 2 arguments: 1) If you drive up the costs for business, it is small and medium sized companies that will struggle, not the multi national corporations. 2) These people create jobs and if you don't allow them to make profit, they'll take those jobs to other countries (probably doesn't apply to Asda directly). I don't think either are valid to be honest, but they are the arguments.
If they are making profits in the millions I would agree ( just ) when it’s in the billions, no sorry I can’t. I can’t see for one minute they would get rid of the majority of their floor staff as they need them more than anybody.
I think there will always be a State Pension but the cost will be controlled surreptitiously by adjusting the qualifying age. I'm no financial expert but a fair taxation system which targets wealth as well as income seems reasonable to me.
The way the NHS is being decimated people won't live as long which will bring down the pension budget ... ... and will reduce queuing times at the Post Office. It's a win win situation
I was reading up on this a while ago. I cant remember the figures but it is scary. I dont think it is just the UK either. It did seem entirely unsustainable, but as always in cases like this solutions are really difficult to find.
