Pensioners defend triple lock after Reeves’ budget

Outrage erupted among Independent readers after James Moore questioned whether pensioners are being unfairly protected — even “mollycoddled” — by Rachel Reeves’s Budget in his latest column. The chancellor doubled down on pensioners’ triple lock in her statement on Wednesday, which delivered a £575 increase to the state pension. Many pushed back at the idea that older people are living on “the Big Rock Candy Mountain”, stressing that the state pension is among the lowest in Europe and, for millions, their only source of income. Several readers shared long working histories, periods of unemployment, illness and caring responsibilities to underline that today’s pensioners were once “working people” too — and paid decades of National Insurance on the promise of security in later life. Others highlighted inequalities within the system itself, noting that not all retirees benefitted from generous occupational schemes and that women in particular were often excluded from them.

A number argued that the triple lock is a lifeline, not a luxury, especially given frozen tax thresholds and rising living costs.

Here’s what you had to say: It doesn’t feel like my pension has increasedI am a 76-year-old man. I worked all my adult life, apart from ages 18-21 when I studied for my first degree and entry-level professional qualification as a teacher. I studied full-time again from age 30-33 to improve my professional skills. My pension has increased over time, allegedly with inflation, but it doesn’t feel like that, and the increases in the state pension have proved vital for me to stay financially afloat. True, I own my own house and I have made all manner of economies to reduce costs, but the fact remains that, despite everything, I struggle to get by. And I am better off than many. Not all baby boomers have had a cushy time of it!

There are different kinds of pensionersSome people seem totally ignorant of what has transpired over the years and want to ignore the fact that pensioners used to be “working people.” When pensioners were working people, they paid National Insurance contributions that went to support people who had already retired. They did that on the basis that they would be supported when reaching retirement age. People also want to forget there are different kinds of pensioners — those who worked for large organisations and those who didn’t. In 1978, the government allowed those who worked for large concerns to contract out of part of the state arrangement and put some National Insurance into an already lucrative company pension. Those who didn’t have that luxury were forced to remain with the state arrangement. It wasn’t until about 1989 that private individuals could contract out with a private pension. By that time, it was too late for some.

There is certainly an argument in respect of those in receipt of company pensions; I know many who view their state pension as nothing more than beer chits. When people were allowed to contract out, it should have been completely out of the state arrangement. However, there are millions who, due to government mismanagement, are solely dependent on the state pension and, having paid throughout their working life to support the pensioners of yesteryear, are entitled to be supported in their twilight years. It shouldn’t be forgotten that up until 2007, it was 44 years of NI to get the pension; it was reduced to 30 and then raised to 35 years. Nor should it be forgotten that the government dished out NI credits like petrol coupons.

Making the state pension more readily available is the real issue behind the problems. Not all pensioners are wealthyMany current pensioners are comfortable, benefitting from no mortgages and additional occupational pensions to buffer their income. However, let’s not forget that for many pensioners, the state pension is their only income. This is particularly the case for many women, who for years often worked in low-paid, part-time jobs and who never paid into occupational pensions, either because they couldn’t afford to or were not permitted to.

As a pensioner myself, I pay tax on my income and am happy to do so. Comments the author makes here, whilst having some validity, sound like those of a child who always thinks they are being treated unfairly.

Entitled to comfort after working lifeWhy are pensioners a special case? Because we have worked all our lives, and now, for many of us, working to make more money is not possible - maybe due to health issues, maybe simply because the job market is ageist. But, whatever the reason, when you reach retirement age, do you not think you are entitled to a little free time and comfort? If you are comfortable, it is certainly not because the state is generous, but because you have saved in some way to provide for your old age. The UK state pension is one of the worst; begrudging a small rise is just the politics of envy. But beware: we all grow old (if we are lucky), and by making it worse for today’s pensioners, you ensure it will be worse when you get there.

Pensioners deserve fairness and recognitionI’m ancient. I paid NI from the age of 16 and, once employed, topped up my pension as much as I could. Having spent much of the earlier part of life broke, I hope the final years would see me a little better off. In between times, I paid (and still pay) heaps of tax.

My own theory is that people should be retired and well-remunerated until they’re fifty, so they can have fun while at their physical peak, and then be shoehorned into employment — except, judging from the above, journalism.

Triple lock compromiseCurrently, the UK state pension is amongst the lowest in Europe, but the Triple Lock is an unsustainable way long-term to improve it.

Perhaps there’s a compromise — enshrine in law (to make it harder to change in the future) that the Triple Lock will only exist until state pension rates reach the level of the actual living wage. After that, it is pegged to the actual living wage and goes up by the same amount.

The actual living wage (rather than what the Tories renamed the minimum wage to pretend you could live on it) is the amount calculated by the Living Wage Foundation and reflects the actual cost of living, ensuring workers earn enough to meet basic needs. Pensioners should be able to survive on their pensions. Plus, setting that as the amount people need to meet their basic needs would then also drive discussion about how the minimum wage is not sufficient to make ends meet, even if working full-time.