That's up to all generations to address. We've got to look after those less able to look after themselves, of which the young and old are very much a part of, but there's a lot of the population of working age, a lot more than there are of pensionable age.Agree but they aren’t, a government that is making life practically impossible for younger people, but basically protecting pensions at huge expense to buy their votes despite them having a lifetime of far more favourable economic conditions that this generation will never see
Hopefully Hunt will now do the decent thing and resign.Peston reporting that Truss has bounced Hunt without consultation.
Hunt told Peston at the weekend triple lock was going.
Be interesting to hear next steps.
It needs funding…..
It has recently been defined as a benefit by the Tories. It's actually a contribution scheme, the definition changed so that the attack on benefits could be extended to the National Insurance contribution scheme.The state pension is a benefit. The definition is the definition whether you like it or not.
We certainly should be looking at job seekers allowance being raised. If you believe the Tory unemployment figures it wouldn't cost a great deal.Ref Credits - for some people its also possible to buy credits for years missed, to increase their state pension.
It should not be young v old, but there has to be some fair sharing of the welfare budget. Job Seekers Allowance is £76/week, State pension is £185/week. I think the state pension should be higher than Job seekers but its now 143% higher. Many people receiving job seekers have conditions that making finding work more difficult e.g disabilities, illnesses, caring responsibilities.
I know the UK state pension is relatively low, but in the UK people can have an income of around £255/week without paying any tax which is the highest tax free allowance in Europe. As said state pension income can be topped up with pension credit, council tax relief, housing benefit.
In the 1970s it felt as though pensioners were getting a raw deal and occupational pension receivers were non common amongst pensioners. Many occupational schemes only started in the 1960s. So people say born in the 1910s didn't have a chance to contribute much to them. Now pensioners are people born in the 1930s, 40s and 1950s (up to 1957) who had more opportunities to benefit from occupational schemes, which in general has increased pensioners incomes. Spouses receive income too from deceased partners pension schemes.
Because the Labour party have notoriously wanted to slash pensions?You can't blame pensioners for propping up the Tories when they're well outnumbered by the working age group when it comes to the electorate.
I looked into this for the years I spent in the States. It's really not worth it.Ref Credits - for some people its also possible to buy credits for years missed, to increase their state pension.
Those of working age have far more votes, regardless of what the pensioners preference is.Because the Labour party have notoriously wanted to slash pensions?
Pensioners voting patterns have been getting worse and worse. You equally can't blame young people for feeling that the old couldn't care less about them.
When 70% of pensioners back the tories it takes a lot of votes to negate thatThose of working age have far more votes, regardless of what the pensioners preference is.
This 'old people,' are to blame is a complete myth. If those of working age voted in serious numbers for the Labour Party they would be in power.
Have a look at the numbers. It wouldn't take anywhere near 70% of those of working age to negate that.When 70% of pensioners back the tories it takes a lot of votes to negate that
Are you sure?I looked into this for the years I spent in the States. It's really not worth it.
If the tripple lock does get removed by the divide and conquer party then it would take a lot less working votes to change government.Have a look at the numbers. It wouldn't take anywhere near 70% of those of working age to negate that.
I don't remember exactly what it was, but decided not to buy the missing ones. I did put in a few years of contributions before I retired.Are you sure?
I'm sure when I looked into it you got your money back with 3 years of pension payouts.
Hmmm so those of working age over 40 plumped for Tories. Hardly pensioners.If the tripple lock does get removed by the divide and conquer party then it would take a lot less working votes to change government.
Why do you think working age/younger voters should bail out the terrible voting patterns of pensioners just because pensioners are starting to find that the tories don't actually care about them either - just their votes?
Take a look at this for a good breakdown of voting patterns:
How Britain voted in the 2019 general election | YouGov
YouGov conducts one of Britain's biggest ever post-election surveys to chart how the nation's political character is shiftingyougov.co.uk
The distribution of people changes things. Young working people are concentrated in cities, old people are spread around the countryside and are the majority in a huge number of seats.Hmmm so those of working age over 40 plumped for Tories. Hardly pensioners.
I'd love to see what percentage of under 40 voters turned out, if they turn out in force they'll be able to swing the election, if they don't then they're letting us all down.
As I said earlier, the number of working age voters far outweighs those of pension age. If they mobilise they'll dictate the political climate, not voting will lead to the status quo being maintained. If it's the smaller section of the population getting their own way there's only one reason for it.
Out of interest, are you against the triple lock, and if so, why?