Why Are Younger People Against The Triple Lock

Yes, living for the here and now, house, cars, technology, holidays are bigger priority it seems, never thinking they’ll get old.
How many Uni students actually end up paying all their loans back?
Do you think older people don’t deserve a break away, only younger people? You afforded the trip, why not older people too.
... till time catches up with him of course, then it’ll be different.

There you go look. It reads like you think young people are feckless, don't pay their debts, selfish, hypocritical.

If you don't resent younger people then bully for you, but what is someone like myself meant to base their opinion on other than what you choose to post? I don't know you personally.
 
I make this point whenever it comes up but if you take away the triple lock the pensioners of today don't really lose out. The loss comes from those that pick up their pension in 10, 20, 30+ years that miss out on decades of compounding.

However, the reason people are against it is that they are the only ones getting it and it's clearly a cynical vote grab to a cohort of voters who have already had every benefit possible and then voted to pull up the ladder behind them. They've already had cheap houses, massive house price rises, free university etc and then voted for those things being taken away but now they are the only ones being looked after.
It is a cynical vote-catch attempt but please don’t lump us oldies all together. I’m close to 70 and on my OAP but I’ve never voted Tory and didn’t vote for Brexit either. I consider myself left of centre, a hater of injustice and inequality and politically have never changed.
 
Trying to stay away from the Boomer v Gen Z argument (Im Gen X, as with a lot of things it will fall to us to sort this unholy mess out - joke!)

It would seem like a pretty obvious way to correct this pensions imbalance would be to reduce the universal state pension - that which is paid to everyone, regardless of income, wealth, assets etc - down to a very low figure but then means test UC payments so that those in poverty get more than under the current pension and those with wealth still feel like they are getting something back out of a system they have paid into.

The current system is clearly untenable given the growing number of older people which will require not only pension payments but more capacity in the NHS and social care
 
Isn’t the U.K. average pensioner income 15k? Hardly luxury is it?

That’s the point in a nutshell.

It’s a pittance so those who can,supplement their’s big style by saving, inheritance etc and still get their state uplift.
We are not suddenly going to find the money to significantly increase pensions so, the answer in the long run, is to continually raise the age of retirement.
That’s why many are against the triple lock.

We just need a different outlook to pensions - ain’t gonna happen tho
 
Seems like you do resent young people tbh. Whats the point of this thread?
You really are a clown if you think that. I resent you now though for stating that, well done you, not many have achieved that on here.

The point of the thread was to discuss a political hot potato that everyone ultimately currently benefits from through compound rates over time, I didn’t enjoy paying 33% income tax or various rates in the 25%+ rate during the 80’s. It was a struggle getting on the housing ladder for me at first then later paying 15% Interest etc. Getting conned with the endowment policy scandal, we had rough times too. The politicians make the rules we live by them and their mistakes. You clearly ignore the bits where I want free education for younger people, no loans to pay back then, I even state that other priorities may mean it is reasonable to be reduced to CPI even though it is insufficient for a basic income alone. I wont bother engaging with you in future now your true colours are shown.
 
There you go look. It reads like you think young people are feckless, don't pay their debts, selfish, hypocritical.

If you don't resent younger people then bully for you, but what is someone like myself meant to base their opinion on other than what you choose to post? I don't know you personally.
You have taken things out of the context they were said in what about the positive bits? You ignore them to make an unjust point.
 
Jeez Louise. You're very thin skinned Col. TBH I don't know why you fixated on a single word from my first reply, I guess to avoid having to admit you may possibly have been misinformed about people not paying their student loans.

You have taken things out of the context they were said in what about the positive bits?

Yeah of course, obviously, because you made a fuss about the word resent and I'm showing you where someone could think you resent younger peopld based on what you've posted.
 
Isn’t the U.K. average pensioner income 15k? Hardly luxury is it?
It depends on how they've lived their lives I guess

15k isn't a lot but if they're a couple, it adds up - ideally they will have paid off a mortgage so that £15k goes a long way compared to a person getting 22k but rent / mortgage to pay. Obviously not everyone has a paid off mortgage though.

Interesting breakdown here. That said I don't spend £1500 a year on clothes now 😂


How does average retirement income compare to average earnings?​

It’s interesting to see how much disposable income the average pensioner today receives, in comparison to the average worker.

Average UK earnings – before tax or housing costs – are £30,420.

After income tax, National Insurance and 5 per cent pension contributions (the recommended minimum), this is reduced to £23,111. On the face of it, this is about 50 per cent more than average retirement income.

However, this does not factor in housing costs. The average UK mortgage payment is £669 per month or £8,028 per year. If this is deducted from the average net income, the result is £15,083.

By a striking coincidence, it appears from these figures that average net income is almost exactly the same for today’s retired generation as it is for today’s working generations.

This is clearly in large part due to the high cost of housing.

While the retired generation may largely own their own homes outright, and have no further mortgage payments to make, the working generation is spending a large chunk of its higher income on putting a roof over its head.

Consequently, net income seems to balance out to within £3 a year. It really is that close.

Is the average retirement income different for couples?​

Couples tend to have more retirement income than single people.

Some reports even suggest that in 2017/18, retired couples received more than twice the income of single retirees.

This may partly be due to the fact that housing costs were included in the study – couples sharing housing will generally have lower overheads than someone on their own.

Another factor may be that those who are single upon entering retirement are likely to be divorced or separated, which may have had a significant impact on their past finances and thus their ability to save for retirement.

People in long-term stable relationships may have a greater capacity for building up retirement funds, as well as a stronger motivation for doing so.

Can I live comfortably on the average retirement income in 2020?​

As the comparison above shows, the average retired income may not be much different – in terms of disposable income – than that of the average wage earner.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean that such an income provides a comfortable or desired standard of living (since many wage earners still consider themselves to be struggling or ‘just getting by’).

So what makes a ‘comfortable’ retirement income?

Ultimately it depends on how you want to spend your retirement.

Research suggests that a couple in the UK need an annual combined income of £47,500 to have a retirement with few or no money worries, while a single person would need £33,000.

This estimate assumes a lifestyle that includes:

  • three weeks’ holiday in Europe (per year)
  • food shops costing £56 per person per week
  • £1,500 worth of clothes per person annually
These assumptions aren’t extravagant, but they aren’t penny-pinching either.

So if you see yourself living more modestly – e.g. shorter UK-based holidays, cheaper food shops and fewer new clothes, you could get by on much less.

Research suggests that an annual income of £10,200 per person is enough for a frugal retirement – but any less might mean making some big sacrifices.

To give you an idea of how much you would need to save, a £100k pension pot would give you an income of between £4,000 to £5,000 a year, plus a lump sum of £25,000 tax-free cash.

This doesn’t sound like much, but if you are also receiving the full new state pension, the total could be between £13,000 and £14,000 per year (plus the tax-free lump sum).

Bear in mind that the state pension age is set to rise in the future.

Based on these figures, it’s clear that it’s advisable to aim for a pension pot of at least £100,000 or preferably more.
 
Jeez Louise. You're very thin skinned Col. TBH I don't know why you fixated on a single word from my first reply, I guess to avoid having to admit you may possibly have been misinformed about people not paying their student loans.



Yeah of course, obviously, because you made a fuss about the word resent and I'm showing you where someone could think you resent younger peopld based on what you've posted.
Thin skinned, deary me no, I don’t let people lie about me thats all.

I haven’t said people all don’t pay their loans though have I, some don’t due to earnings thresholds, not everyone is going to, especially in towns like Bridlington, Scarborough and the like where there really is a low wage economy.

One example, a friends daughter has chosen to be a part time shop assistant after previously getting. 2:1 as her and her boyfriend have decided to set up home together and are starting a family and she doesn’t want to leave the area, she wants to be a full time mum ultimately, good luck to her too, people have differing priorities as to what is important to them. You should not presume criticism or resentment when real life examples exist, they may be rare in your circle, but there is a lot of people earning less than £20k in Scarborough and some have degrees and debts that may or will eventually get written off in part or full. I don’t think they should be charged a penny for education and have a debt held over them for anything to do with education, it should be free for all like health.
 
I'm a Boomer, worked hard grabbed any extra shift I could and worked a 2nd job at weekends. Mrs worked full time too.
This got me a start on the housing ladder. Had a son by the time he went to uni I was nearly finished my mortgage. This helped me give him enough money to not have to work while at uni and not have to borrow as much. My hard work helped him get a masters and now he earns the kind of money I never managed to earn half of at my peak of earnings.
When me and the Mrs peg out he will get our house and any money we have. This is happening in millions of homes around the country. What has been good for us will help our children on a scale we couldn't of dreamt of. Most Boomers I know inherited a tele and a stereo gram if they were lucky.
Even doing the same as you did now, most in this country would not be able to get on the ladder.
You look at modern pay-packets and think that's a lot, but in real terms and by almost every measure this generation have much less spending power ESPECIALLY when it comes to housing. Productivity has went up, profits have went up, yet wages (after inflation) have been eroded to the point where statistically this generation are worse off than any generation since the war.

Poverty has always existed, and previous generations have had tough periods (I remember in the 80s having nothing but egg and chips for weeks because that's all we could afford), but spending power was still higher than today. Add in that university is no longer free, pensions are worth less, no final salary pensions ect, the cost of childcare now is abhorrent and its clear why.

Nobody is claiming boomers never worked hard, however you have pulled the draw bridge up after yourselves, all the advantages you had, affordable homes free education ect are gone and we have to work longer as a result.
Your experience is not comparable to this generation.
 
Even doing the same as you did now, most in this country would not be able to get on the ladder.
You look at modern pay-packets and think that's a lot, but in real terms and by almost every measure this generation have much less spending power ESPECIALLY when it comes to housing. Productivity has went up, profits have went up, yet wages (after inflation) have been eroded to the point where statistically this generation are worse off than any generation since the war.

Poverty has always existed, and previous generations have had tough periods (I remember in the 80s having nothing but egg and chips for weeks because that's all we could afford), but spending power was still higher than today. Add in that university is no longer free, pensions are worth less, no final salary pensions ect, the cost of childcare now is abhorrent and its clear why.

Nobody is claiming boomers never worked hard, however you have pulled the draw bridge up after yourselves, all the advantages you had, affordable homes free education ect are gone and we have to work longer as a result.
Your experience is not comparable to this generation.
To also add, most people will lose their house equity paying for their care at the end of their life, if you think millions of people will benefit from "your hard work" you are living on another planet.

What was good for you is now gone, you worked hard and got a house for around 5 times your salary.

Today you can work 2 jobs, be paying 1500 in rent and a bank wont touch you because you don't have enough left to save for a deposit each month because you are paying back uni fees, childcare ect that your generation did not have to worry about. There are no manufacturing jobs and heavy industry that used to sustain people who didn't go the uni route either and job security is basically non existent.

Your experiences and this generations are not the same.
 
Even doing the same as you did now, most in this country would not be able to get on the ladder.
You look at modern pay-packets and think that's a lot, but in real terms and by almost every measure this generation have much less spending power ESPECIALLY when it comes to housing. Productivity has went up, profits have went up, yet wages (after inflation) have been eroded to the point where statistically this generation are worse off than any generation since the war.

Poverty has always existed, and previous generations have had tough periods (I remember in the 80s having nothing but egg and chips for weeks because that's all we could afford), but spending power was still higher than today. Add in that university is no longer free, pensions are worth less, no final salary pensions ect, the cost of childcare now is abhorrent and its clear why.

Nobody is claiming boomers never worked hard, however you have pulled the draw bridge up after yourselves, all the advantages you had, affordable homes free education ect are gone and we have to work longer as a result.
Your experience is not comparable to this generation.
So who do you think we are leaving our houses and money to then. ?
 
So who do you think we are leaving our houses and money to then. ?

In most cases the state, as they make you sell it to pay for your care.

Many who do have something left over will likely go to paying teh debts that are hanging over this generation that they have to take on to survive sometimes.

As I said the experiences your generation have had do not exist any more, people have less money and more debt, and any assets their parents have will likely go towards paying ridiculous nursing home and care fees at the end of their life.
 
Probably because the Daily Mail/Express have headlines along the line of "Restore the triple lock or else" or "The great triple lock betrayal" or other sensationalist stuff.

Similar to what pops up on Social Media "you think you have it hard" accompanied by some picture from WW2.
Yes, yes, yes!! Absolutely. Also accompanied by another story and some pictures of people coming off boats, implying that ‘brown’ people are marauding the countryside gobbling up jobs, greedily hoovering up all the resources and sponging off the country, living the life of Riley in the lap of luxury.
The real parasites more often than not attended public schools, live in ancestral homes that get renovated at public expense run railway companies that are guaranteed profits irrespective of performance and are propped up by public funds, sit on boards of companies that they leech money from for years on end, then wind them up because they claim they aren’t profitable, play high yield games in their square mile and when they screw the economy, get bailed out by us all, whilst shielded by the government and their puppets in the mainstream media who help them to hide behind headlines about people on benefits draining the country.
All hungrily devoured and believed as gospel truth by people who don’t question what they read in their papers.
We spend more on pensions than on any other state benefit.
My parents, although I love them dearly have both benefited from winter fuel payments, one of them spends a third of the year holidaying in Bali, the other goes on 5 or 6 holidays a year.
The country has been drained by the generation before mine.
All the b***ks about being hard working and thrifty!
I’m 47, been at work for 30 years, got another 25 at least to go, will have to work until I’m at least 80, when I tell my old man this, he tells me things will be okay because he’ll leave me a bit, all very well but the last generation also for the most part enjoyed a reasonably paid ‘job for life’.
Whereas, when I left school there was a recession, large industries were being wound up, I could only find jobs that paid next to nothing, I’ve had years on end of juggling money, no job security, paying for fuel to get to work on a maxed credit card, having **** all left at the end of the month, not earning enough money to support my family, having to work two jobs to get by 60+ hours a week.
If my kids want to go to university, it’s costs a fortune.
Council housing sold to private companies, headmaster at my kid’s primary school having to pay cleaning staff with his own wages.
Older people will point to car ownership, and say we couldn’t afford one, despite it being an absolute necessity because the places that used to locally employ people, nationalised industries, steel works and similar are now shut. No youth clubs for kids, **** me I could go on all day.
 
Touch wood nothing like this happens for you personally Blf but there will of course be a lot of people that think they have this brilliant inheritance ready for their children and then later in life find it all disappears in healthcare and end of life costs. Medicines advancements mean people live longer and longer, reaching ages when they need more and more assistance. As others have mentioned there'll be a lot of millenials and gen z's that were never able to afford their own property and still don't inherit anything.
My side tend to go quickly. Everything going OK then pop gone. Mrs side do tend to reach a good age.
For anything else it's Dignitas.
 
Last edited:
I am not an OAP, but not decades away.

My view is the state pension should rise with wages, but that is it.

The basic state pension is 25% of the average earned income, but it will rise to around 33% as more people receive the full state pension instead of the basic pension in current money terms around £7,500 v £10,000 per year. Many left on the basic pension will be people who have a state pension and another pension of some sorts say occupational or private or SIPP.

We have known for at least 43 years now the state pension alone was never enough. Aspiration of people say born after 1945 also were for a retired standard of living that included one decent holiday a year, a weekly treat like meal out, theatre trip, warm house, cheap car, be able to replace broken things in the house, be able to but presents for others. Today that would be a living wage or about £15,000 after tax - hence the need to top up the state pension.

Often its an elderly woman who has divorced and not remarried and often lost a non state state pension that hits problems in old age as they depend on the state pension for the vast majority of their income and don't hit the £15k. My own mother was in this category, she would not buy Fish and Chips for her self because she said she could not afford to spend £7 (five years ago) on one meal. I did persuade her to claim council tax relief. Her income was just too high for Pension Credit (now about £11,000 or less). She had an old car which my brothers and I had bought her, but there ws no way she could replace it. A holiday was staying with relatives. I did get angry because she has worked full time for all but 10 years of her working life period. The issue in her life was not getting any pension from my father as she divorced him what she was in her late 40s and not remarried.

I do think examples of my mum are reducing as women now often pay full NI all their lives or most of their lives giving them at least £10k and when working they receive a minimum private pension, so a 1980 born women will retire on at least gross £18k? (in today money)

The average UK pensioner's income was £15k in 2017/18 after housing costs and after taxes - my guess is that will be closer to £18,000 now. That equivalent to around £30k a year for someone with a £100k mortgage. The average pensioner is not poor. Of course there are my Mums of this world who probably are in most people's view.
 
Last edited:
The boomers should be utterly ashamed that their children are less well off than they were but instead they blame their children's generation for living in a world the boomers have control over.
Mine are both first class honours graduates under 30 and both are much better off than I was at their age.
They own property more valuable than I did, they earn relatively more than I did and have more disposable than I did.
They will also inherit in time.

There is far too much generalisation on this thread.
Some old people are struggling.
Some young people are struggling.
The problem is the great divide in both incomes and wealth.
The very highest earners do not pay enough tax and are expert at avoiding/ evading.
Ultra wealth (not family homes) is far too concentrated and unjustifiably self perpetuating.
There is enough to ensure all old people are comfortable, all young people have opportunity and a life.
Divide and conquer is used to keep us all focussed against each other and blind to the real causes.
 
Mine are both first class honours graduates under 30 and both are much better off than I was at their age.
They own property more valuable than I did, they earn relatively more than I did and have more disposable than I did.
They will also inherit in time.

There is far too much generalisation on this thread.
Some old people are struggling.
Some young people are struggling.
The problem is the great divide in both incomes and wealth.
The very highest earners do not pay enough tax and are expert at avoiding/ evading.
Ultra wealth (not family homes) is far too concentrated and unjustifiably self perpetuating.
There is enough to ensure all old people are comfortable, all young people have opportunity and a life.
Divide and conquer is used to keep us all focussed against each other and blind to the real causes.
I agree with most of what you are saying here.
You must be very proud of your kids but it is just one example, the general trend is that most of their cohort will not achieve what they have.
When you look at things on a national level, generalisation is inevitable and needed; individual case studies, do little counter the fact that statistically this generation are much poorer in real terms. We have all seen periods of decline and financial depression but the projection for that cohort is long-term struggles, low spending power, expensive entry to home ownership and little job security.

Nobody is arguing that pensioners should not be looked after, I think what most are asking for is some balance and fairness.

All people not of inherited wealth, but especially, 18-30 year olds, pensioners, infrastructure workers, essential public servants like the NHS, unemployed and low earners deserve a better deal.
 
Back
Top