Triple lock

Makes you wonder why doesn't it Eloe? But then I find that most people's knowledge of the benefits system is in inverse proportion to their willingness to pass judgement on it and those dreadful scroungers.

I think a lot of people don't even know about the huge changes to bereavement benefit - I mentioned it to a friend today and she knew nothing about it.

I haven't looked at the DWP thread but I remember the very little concern about the bereavement benefit cuts - were they mentioned on there? ( I'll go snd look) I remember a lot of negative commens about Daniel Blake and then the recent thread on that thoroughly disgusting and reprehensible C5 benefits programme. The overall sense I get from GN on the subject of benefits is that a few regular posters, you DJ being one of them, care very much but the majority don't

How long have you been on GN, Rigby?
There's been lots on about welfare cuts. It's another of those subjects that the rightwingers get annoyed about.
In fact, go on the DWP thread and you'll find it quite up to date.

Perhaps another forum would have a more in depth discussion Rigby. If you are looking for something specific it is often worth going to the forum dealing with that.

And actually gg there is very little debate about welfare cuts in general on GN - there was hardly any interest in the huge cuts in bereavement allowances and the last thread mentioning benefits was the usual stuff that follows those appalling benefit porn programmes - hardly informed debate or a real discussion of the real issues around benefits.

There's a huge gap between utopia ie universal income which just will not happen in the foreseeable and a whole range of possibilities that just might - so come on what would you do that is politically feasible - I've mentioned a range of ideas -could NI be changed? Could income tax thresholds be more differentiated? Could the same uprating be applied across all benefits? And yes the thread is called triple lock but the basis of my argument is that you can't look at the treatment of pensions in isolation.There is real poverty in this country - some of it amongst pensioners and there are others who are much more than comfortable, some of them pensioners. I really don't see what's wrong with discussing that situation and trying to come up with some ideas. But actually - nothing much will happen anyway. All claimants apart from pensioners will continue to see their benefits frozen, benefits will continue to be harder and harder to claim and will constantly reduce in scope and coverage and pensioners will lose the triple lock but at least get a double lock. The really hard up pensioners will see no improvements and well off pensioners like me will be just fine and dandy. The next Conservstive government as surely the next one will be, will do zilch to address any of these issues apart from maybe the double lock and will be able to continue to rely on the votes of enough pensioners to help keep them in power. It's quite depressing really for some of us who would like things to be fairer but I can't honestly see any possibility of improvement.

I'd go for universal income so nobody felt hard done by.

I'm not sure people were arguing just for pensioners Rigby. In fact I am sure there has been a great deal of discussion about welfare cuts in general. This thread is called "Triple Lock" so it is likely to be mainly about just that.

I am flattered that you want to know what I would change but currently we are looking at what the parties have to offer. I think your comment "it's not good going for utopia" would stop anyone offering a suggestion as it feels as if it has to fit what you would do not what they would do. It will be interesting to see the actual offers from the parties.

Or even lock.

That's exactly what I'm arguing for - we need some logical discussion. It's not logical to keep on arguing in favour of preferable treatment for pensioners - there should be logic behind the debate. We should decide what is fair in terms of updating of benefits - I'd say for starters the rate of inflation. Then all benefits should get that. Then the next debate is the level at which means tested tops up should be set at. That's much more difficult of course. But I just think it's plain wrong just to defend pensioners triple lock without looking at the wider picture and having some idea of how the system should be fairer. How would you change it GG? And it's no good going for utopia - that's why I'm suggesting better pension credit top up as the solution and the taking away of the triple lock. It's not what I think is ideal but I think it's realistic. They aren't going to triple lick other benefits are they?

Do you know how much the JSA of £73.10 went up? All the way to £73.10 - yes, frozen so in effect a cut.

This is just what the Conservatives like - setting one group against another. Just because on benefit it not good you do not need to attack those on another. We need a system that supports - for everyone Rigby.

Exactly the same as with pensioners - but I was talking about the rate payable before any means tested top ups and asking why anyone thought it was fair that two contributory benefits - JSA and SP should not receive the same uprating specially as the former is so low in the first place.

I am not up-to-date with the rules and regulations of Job Seekers' Allowance and who is entitled to it, although DD did receive it for a short while between jobs. She was living at home at the time so we were able to feed her and did not charge her rent at that time.
Surely if someone is living in rented accommodation without other support this would not be the only income they receive?

And very few benefits have ever been universal - child benefit was ( but is now means tested) AA, DLA ( now PIP) - can't think of any others at the moment.

gg - hysteria? Oh very erudite! Do you know how much the JSA of £73.10 went up? All the way to £73.10 - yes, frozen so in effect a cut. Go on justify that. And you might try reading my posts - where have I said that the increase is too much? I've criticised the principal of the triple lock and said that pension credit should be more generous - what patronising claptrap about buying someone a cup of coffee- I would like a better fairer system that would give more to those without other pensions/earnings and that people like me of whom there are a goodly number, should not be cosseted by triple locks. How is get hysteria? I want to receive less so that others in greater need receive more.

I do think people felt and still feel they paid for their pension Ana. I have to admit I thought we had paid for care from the cradle to the grave too - that brings hollow laughter in our household I'm afraid.

We could go back to an insurance based system I suppose but it was never just that; some benefits were always universal.

grannygranby Very interesting point about pension credit.

Yes I opted in for everything and when pension forecast said that I only had 38 years of contributions instead of 40 I paid the extra. The difference of the contribution based 'benefits' is for instance I could have moved elsewhere in Europe before Brexit and still received my State Pension. If I received Pension Credit of the same amount but had not paid contributions I couldn't. You can only claim it if you live in the UK. I also knew that as I was not working in the public sector and worked for very small company and then self employed I had no other pension...
But the main thing is the hysteria over the triple lock - basically meaning at present that pensioners will get the 2 and half per cent on their State Pension - this is £3 a week. Not exactly a Kings Ransom - especially for those too old to work and without other income. We pay one of the lowest pensions in Europe. Nothing to be proud of. And as I said earlier if you feel that £3 is too much because you have other incomes - buy someone a cup of coffee - because that's how much it is worth.

I also paid 'Graduated Pension Contributions' for a long time which entitle me to about £2.30 per week. 20 years ago when I asked for a forecast it was known as 'Graduated Pension' - now known as 'Graduated Retirement Benefit'.

Every little helps.

I think the point that was being made (I may be mistaken) is that a lot of older people believed that their National Insurance contributions were actually going into an insurance 'pot' which guaranteed them a pension according to how much they'd paid in during their working life.

I know my granddad did!

But there are still ( if very few) benefits that are dependent on having made NICs such as contribution based JSA, bereavement benefits, ( although just drastically cut back by the caring government when people paid NICs for years thinking they were part of the deal) , Contributory ESA, MA. These are still called benefits and they are not means tested. So it's pretty disingenuous to say SP isn't a benefit and the others that are contribution based are. Also, what about the retired women who aren't entitled to a full pension in their own right but inherit their deceased husband's?

Well, I don't either but the reply to my letter (many years ago now and which I have discarded) was quite definite that it is a 'benefit'.

Yes, I realise that. But also, most people assume that NI contributions are paying towards their state pensions, so don't see why the state pension should be classed as a 'benefit'.

I suppose the difference in people's minds arises because the State Pension (Benefit) is variable according to the level of contributions you have made whereas other benefits, including Pension Credit, are assessed on need.