Different architecture though, probably paying lower taxes in the UK as the expectation is that people save and invest in their own pensions with the state pension meant to be a supplement/ safety net if things haven’t worked out.
The concern with the triple lock isn’t the 2.5% guarantee, its the fact that since it was implemented 15 years ago, it has increased by the guaranteed 2.5% in only 3 of those years. In the other 12 years it has increased by more because inflation and/ or earnings have been higher. That’s obviously not necessarily a bad thing given how many pensioners are faced with, or at risk of, poverty but given it is growing quicker than government revenues are, is taking up a lot more of the budget than was previously forecasted when introduced, and is expected to continue doing so over the next decade then it obviously raises questions as to whether it is sustainable.
Don’t be a drama queen. I’m entitled to an opinion and supported my point, if you think i interpreted it wrong then that’s for you to decide.
Some of my views are more RW than yours, that’s a given, is that a crime?
Is it stupid because you dont agree with some of the things I say, or is it stupid because you don’t want anyone challenging your narrative?
That’s not how it was sold to today’s pensioners when they started work 50-60 years ago. The state pension was presented as their main source of income when they reached retirement age. Paying into private workplace pensions was optional with very little, if any, pressure to do so. It’s only over the last 15 years or so that companies are obliged by law to offer a private pension, and even then it can be opted out of.
It’s only when you do the maths you see how absurd it all is. At the current rate a 2.5% rise amounts to about £6 a week. For arguments sake if the rise is 3.5% that amounts to an extra £2.40 a week. The price of a jar of jam.
On a serious note, he inherited a tough situation. The Tories opted for Truss so they didn’t have to do another Term in Government, Sunak just didn’t get the Memo.
I have said it before, there is no one in Government that really inspires the public, which is why we are going through so many. My problem with Starmer’s time in office is that he never convinced the Country on a National basis that he had any solutions, or a clear plan. The Government backed down on a few of their policies when really they should have stayed strong. You won’t get anywhere trying to please everyone.
On an international basis, he was a lot more successful and I credit him on that.
I think Burnham has the personality, and a way with people that may give him a lot more leeway with the Party and the Public, than that afforded Starmer but he needs to be willing to upset people, make informed and qualified decisions and stand by them.
I have no reason to be negative to Burnham, but I worry that he inherits a toxic climate.
My 1% joke is mostly about you guys having gone through a rather big cat-litter of prime ministers since Cameron’s Brexit vote. The UK economy is on a downward trajectory that is hard to stop, the Royal Navy is in a death spiral due to sins of previous governments and lack of will to fix it from those who came after and etc. Many issues.
It will be difficult for him. I can only wish him, and you all, well.
All of that will be hard to fix, and some of the issues are impossible to fix while keeping the average voters happy, because it will require a lot of money which must be taken from somewhere else without stifling growth.
Completely this, but I don’t know what the answer is.
I am no economist so my understanding may be off here and be no more than an ill informed rant. However…
I believe that currently, a median income earning pensioner will contribute 56% towards to their total pension.
As you state it’s a bit of a Ponzi scheme in that people are encouraged to pay in on the basis they will receive an increased return to help support them when they are unable to work.
The Ponzi bit is that the Government should use that money to improve its own financial income so that they can pay the State pension without there being a negative balance. This is usually funded by the young people working and paying taxes.
The problem with this that we currently have almost 1million in that vital age bracket that are statistically NEET, I think the latest figures are 8 out of 10 people are NEET and the estimated cost of this is £125bn to the economy annually.
So we have an increasing number of people claiming a pension and a reducing number of young people covering the impact on the Governments coffers by not working.
My main gripe is people viewing pensioners more negatively than the working aged welfare, people receiving benefits without actually having contributed.
**please note, I appreciate that everyone’s circumstances are different and I am not trying to stereotype.
If you are single and under 25 you can claim up to approximately £330 a month UC.
You can additionally claim an extra £300 per child a month.
If your child is disabled you can get between £160 to £500+ per month.
If you have a disability/health problem that is diagnosed as less severe or may improve over time you are entitled to a further £217 even more depending on circumstances.
A carer providing 35hrs can claim £86 a week.
This is all before you filter in Housing, childcare, etc.
The median monthly take home for under 25’s is
At the best end £1350. Full time 21-24 National wage limit £1750. This is not factoring in expenses. Why work 37.5 hours a week to take home less than £1750 a month and pay for your housing, when you could play the system, do fuck all and me no financially worse off?
The OBNR estimates that working aged people claiming health/disability will jump by 2.2m over the next 5 years to 8.8m.
It is also estimated that the Total cost to the economy through benefits and lost tax/NI revenue for working aged people could be as high as £330bn a year.
I accept my figures are loose, have to meet certain requirements and that I am also being very cynical.
I also accept that there are a lot of people who actually want to be working but can’t for what ever reason.
But the long and short of it is that the Government is spending far too much money on people who don’t actually contribute to the economy in their present situation.
I think we all wish him well and I appreciate your best wishes. Time will tell.
I can only really speak from my own memory but I believe the Government started getting publicly toxic towards the end of the Blair/Brown regime. Since then it has predominantly got worse with some exceptions.
I will probably get shot down here, but as a Country we have increasingly tried to promote ourselves as an a Country with high morales, a place that wants to promote acceptance, looks after its people and be seen as a beacon of humanity but it has only really caused division. The Government cannot make a decision now without factoring in who will be offended more. So they soften the tough decisions and u-turn at a hint of opposition.
I maybe fooling myself but I don’t think the UKs economy is on a downward spiral. Sure it needs changes and soon, but France’s economy has suffered with it propping up its GDP with over borrowing and Germany has faced a lot of struggles due to cheaper manufacturing competition and high energy costs.
I actually think the UK has a lot of positives going forward, with the right leadership. Blair and Brown as part of New Labour made the UK more Service based, which in today’s economy was probably a good idea. As we cannot compete with countries like China and India who have an abundance of labour/materials and lower energy costs.
I personally feel Germany will feel the pinch quite hard, which is why they are discussing going back to Fossil Fuels. France has seen a massive reduction in its agricultural sector and its economy has been propped up its very successful tourism/holiday sector its high end goods and an improvement in its Services sector.
A massive concern of mine regarding the UK is how much of its infrastructure is privately and usually foreign owned. Thats not me being patriotic blaming foreigners, it is the fact the a lot of Countries have investment arms which are making a lot of money from the UK, when infact we should be benefitting from them. North Sea oil, Airports, nuclear energy, water, etc. and at times we are at times held financially accountable because of the massive implications of some of these businesses going bust, like the Steel sector.
“ A bloke who wasn’t even a parliamentary candidate at the last general election and wasn’t even an MP this time last week, could be prime minister by this time next month.
“And remember he’s run for the Labour leadership twice before and lost,” one minister pointed out to me, adding: “And not only that. He lost to two losers – Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn.”
“
I’ve was wondering last night what a new PM and Chancellor will potentially have to deal with.
Impact of Space X stock market float. 11th August there will be a fire sale on a company that has an estimated value way way above what it probably is in reality. What I’m not sure of is how far reaching that will be.
Potential chaos of a massive spike in oil prices come mid July(ish) when all oil reserves run dry and the US /Iran conflict continues
A pop of the AI bubble.
Potential impact of Super el Nino on world food supplies and therefore inflation.
Yes that’s probably true but Thatcher came to power about 47 years ago and began changing things up. Even if the government didn’t do a good job at putting out messages to encourage saving for retirement, one only needs to be aware of all the stories in the media of pensioners struggling to make ends meet or links such as this one that aim to give a rough idea as to how much would be needed for different living standards to know the State Pension is only going to give you a minimal standard of living.
The changes you mention were I think meant to be more of a nudge to get people thinking more seriously about saving for their retirement. I don’t know why nothing more definitive was done (perhaps worried about it conflicting with the pensions industry or concern it would lose votes when people have to choose between saving for retirement and the deposit for a flat or house or just when not seeing much money left at the end of the month because of low wage growth?)
Sure on an individual level it isn’t much, but these things are cumulative. The number of people reaching pensionable age is increasing (24% of adult population now but 27% by 2050 despite the state pension age changes already pencilled in), the length of time they are living in retirement has increased and the increases paid out year upon year are compounding. Govt spending on the state pension is currently around 11% (around 5% of GDP?) of all government spending. I think it was about 7.5% (around 4% GDP) in 2011. I read online that it is forecast to increase by 0.6% of GDP by 2040 and a further 0.7% by 2050?
.