No fun being old under Andy Burnham .

Not all of them wine worse off than those on the NSP. Many will have SERPS, and inherited pensions that those on NSPs don’t get, many will have paid lower contributions (eg married women’s stamp) and they retired at 60. By no means everyone retiring at 66/67/68 will get the full amount, either.

There is pension credit for people in both groups if they haven’t made full contributions, and that is the same amount - it will actually bring them to a higher income than those with a small amount over the state pension. The constant refrain of how everyone on the OSP is so much worse off is just not true.

I haven’t seen the detail of a different triple lock deal, so can’t comment on that, but pensions are contributory benefits, which are linked to contributions made. To make ‘equalisation’ fair those on OSP would have to repay 6 or more years, as well as the difference between married women’s contributions and full ones, and those with SERPS and inherited pensions would have to give them up. Or those on NSP would have to be given 6 or more years of pension, the chance to pay for earnings-related pensions, and widows’ pensions where applicable.

Would that be popular, do you think?

Have we had all the details yet?

I m old and very happy so far thanks

Could you point the way to a reference for this please.

Only I’m have difficulty in finding this.

The CPSA at end of July indicated that Burnham gave full support to the triple lock, and I’ve read the same in other publications.

Someone’s been reading the shite pumped out on FB.
Ignore.

Pensioners born before 1950 (who fall under the old basic State Pension system) receive a lower cash-terms annual increase under the triple lock than those on the new State Pension. This happens because the percentage increase is applied to a smaller base rate (£184.90 a week versus £241.30 a week), even though the triple lock percentage itself is identical for both.

I think this is what this is referring to, love0c.
Just a small correction - I was born in 1952, and am on the lower , older rate of State Pension.

Chocolatelovinggran I remembered reading about it somewhere, but didn't really bother as it does not affect me. Why some people feel the ned to be so rude is beyond me.

I'm beginning to go right off him! ??

I have been off him since he forced his way into being Prime Minister.
His aims are deliberately divisive: North against South, old against young, working against middle class, feckless against responsible.
A true Marxist.

love0c

Pensioners born before 1950 (who fall under the old basic State Pension system) receive a lower cash-terms annual increase under the triple lock than those on the new State Pension. This happens because the percentage increase is applied to a smaller base rate (£184.90 a week versus £241.30 a week), even though the triple lock percentage itself is identical for both.

That’s my understanding too,

eazybee

^I'm beginning to go right off him!^ ??

I have been off him since he forced his way into being Prime Minister.
His aims are deliberately divisive: North against South, old against young, working against middle class, feckless against responsible.
A true Marxist.

😄😄😄

love0c

Chocolatelovinggran I remembered reading about it somewhere, but didn't really bother as it does not affect me. Why some people feel the ned to be so rude is beyond me.

Who was being rude?

Whitewavemark2

eazybee

I'm beginning to go right off him! ??

I have been off him since he forced his way into being Prime Minister.
His aims are deliberately divisive: North against South, old against young, working against middle class, feckless against responsible.
A true Marxist.

😄😄😄

It’s comedy gold on N & P this morning.

An H & M thread in full swing and a Marxist PM!