Your report (Treasury officials mull one-off break from pensions triple lock, 12 September) highlights the potential change in the calculation of the state pension, which has raised controversy due to the Conservative Party’s commitment to the triple-lock formula in their election manifesto.
Describing the situation as “controversial” is an understatement. Just last month, Rishi Sunak, without any reservations, confirmed that the triple lock would be applied next year, disregarding concerns about the cost. Sunak’s pledge to keep the triple lock and his dismissal of worries about affordability further underscore his confidence in the annual uplift for pensioners.
However, if the government reneges on this unequivocal commitment, questions will arise regarding Sunak’s credibility and his promise to govern with integrity, professionalism, and accountability.
This raises concerns about the future of the state pension system.
Mike Pender
Cardiff
The debate surrounding the pensions triple lock overlooks a crucial fact: the UK has the lowest state pensions in the developed world, as evidenced by an OECD study in 2017. The triple lock aims to address this issue. Despite the view of William Hague characterizing it as a “runaway train,” maintaining the triple lock will gradually elevate the UK’s poverty pensions to the European average over time.
Why don’t political parties adopt a straightforward solution to the dilemma of keeping pensioners in poverty? The answer lies in retaining the triple lock but imposing a cap, such as 7%. In doing so, the state pension would continue to rise until it reaches the European average. This proposal offers a simple yet effective resolution.
Dan Cooper
Watford, Hertfordshire
William Hague’s description of the triple lock on pensions as a “runaway train” is questionable. As a pensioner who works in the health sector four days a week and serves as a part-time carer for my wife and son, I contribute to both the real economy and the social economy. In my view, the triple lock represents wealth redistribution and should be extended to the entire population. This extension can be achieved through higher wages and a robust public service sector, as they are responsible for generating the wealth of our country.
Paul Hartley
Witney, Oxfordshire
In the ongoing triple lock debate, it’s important to acknowledge that percentage increases widen the gap between lower and higher earners. In the 1970s, trade unions advocated for flat amounts in pay bargaining to reduce income disparities, although higher-paid workers sometimes resisted. The issue of inequality is particularly prevalent for women, who typically start with lower wages than their male counterparts. Any argument in favor of percentage increases must be accompanied by policies that address the perpetuation of inequalities, both in pensions and wages.
Prof Mike Bury
Wrotham, Kent
Critics who claim that the triple lock is no longer sustainable fail to consider the option of increased taxation. Maintaining the value of pensions and the quality of public services necessitates collecting and redistributing more funds from individuals and businesses. This issue is highly political and should be discussed before, not after, the general election.
Les Bright
Exeter, Devon
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
